Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Bill read the Third time and passed.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL

DERBY CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, you may remember that on 4th February, when this Bill came before the House, I raised a point of order to the effect that HANSARD had not reported the objection——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order twice previously. If there is on the Order Paper an adverse Amendment to a Bill, there is no reason for an hon. Member to object or to call "Objection" after the first time it appears.

Mr. Hector Hughes: You replied, Mr. Speaker, that at that time you were not apprised of the objection that I was raising. I have taken appropriate steps to ensure that you were duly apprised of

the objection that I am now raising, and, further, I have put upon the Order Paper——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If objection is taken to a Bill, sooner or later the Chairman of Ways and Means will put it down for debate. I hope that this satisfies the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Hector Hughes: With respect, further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member is trespassing on the very valuable time of the House.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I apologise, but it is important that HANSARD should be a complete record——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised this point twice before. If he seeks a change in the Orders of the House he must take it up with the Services Committee.

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

GREATER LONDON LOCAL RADIO AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 11lth March.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

YORK CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid Management

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Overseas Development (1) if he will hold consultations with the Governments of Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, Malawi and Zambia with a view to the setting up of a development division of his Department in this area of Africa;

(2) if, in view of the increased usefulness of British aid to India resulting from the posting to the United Kingdom High Commission of an experienced officer to co-ordinate the aid effort, he will consider posting such officers to the United Kingdom High Commission and embassies in other countries where Her Majesty's Government has major aid programmes.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action he is taking to increase the number of aid administrators and specialist advisers from his Department serving overseas.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): Aid management is part of the British representational function overseas which is now being examined by the Review Committees on Overseas Representation. I would prefer to await its report before considering the need for possible additional development divisions or the appointment of additional officers in British High Commissions or Embassies.

Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Minister kindly bear in mind at this review that the calibre of our development experts in this frontier area on the borders of the Union of South Africa is of importance, and that the best of our experts should be available to all the countries in that area?

Mr. Prentice: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of having people of very high calibre in charge of our aid management in that area. It is a question of how we organise this, and, on that, I should prefer to await the Report of the Committee under Sir Val Duncan.

Mr. Carter-Jones: But would my right hon. Friend not agree that the Estimates

Committee's Report on this subject shows the importance of specialised divisional officers in the area who are specialists in aid management and not concerned with the day-to-day administration of embassies or high commissions?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. There are, of course, in that area officials who specialise in aid management. The question is whether there is a case for organising them in a new development division or whether they should continue to do their work as part of the high commissions in the areas concerned.

Mr. Braine: Is there not a danger, as the Select Committee pointed out, that as time goes on fewer of the officials in the right hon. Gentleman's Department will have practical experience of aid management overseas? Is there not a distinct merit in the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) in Question No. 2?

Mr. Prentice: This is one of the factors which I shall certainly take into account, although the hon. Member will recognise that we also want aid management regarded as one of the normal functions of a high commision or embassy and that it should be part of the work, therefore, of career diplomats as well as people specialising in it who are seconded from the Ministry or otherwise making a career in the aid field.

Anguilla (Aid Programme)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement about aid for Anguilla.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): With the agreement of the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla about £55,000 was expended on development grants to Anguilla during the period of the interim settlement. The provision of aid automatically ceased when this settlement came to an end last month.

Mr. Marten: I am much more interested in the future. What guarantee is there that the aid destined for Anguilla is not blocked by and in St. Kitts? Second, why was advice given to withdraw the V.S.O.s from Anguilla, since most of them have now returned?

Mr. Oram: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that in aid matters we are dealing with the constitutional Government. We cannot deal direct with Anguilla. It is certainly my hope that it will be possible to resume our aid programme, but it depends on the constitutional position. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. On the question of V.S.O.s in general, our policy has to be in line with general aid policy—not always, but generally.

Aid Donors (Collaboration)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will propose to the Federal German Government that this country and the Federal Republic should collaborate in the provision of overseas aid.

Mr. Prentice: We already work closely with the Federal German Government, and with other donors, on many aid questions in the various international bodies of which we are both members.

Mr. Brooks: But would not my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the obvious advantages of continuing and expanding this type of collaboration, there are, in principle, advantages in this sort of multilateral or partly multilateral and partly bilateral arrangement for channelling aid on the pattern of the European Development Fund?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, I agree that there are great advantages in co-ordination between aid donors, but, more generally, this should take place not just between two individual donors but between larger groups, like the Development Assistance Committee of the O.E.C.D., the World Bank, the U.N. Agencies or the various other ways open to us.

Great River Systems (Economic Potential)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will take the initiative in proposing to the United Nations specialist agencies that comprehensive studies be undertaken of the economic potential of each of the great river systems within the developing world.

Mr. Prentice: Studies of this kind can, of course, be of great value but the U.N. Development Programme already includes 33 large projects involving studies of river basins and another 33 studies in the fields of water power, hydraulics and meteorology. I am sure that the U.N. Agencies will take any further initiatives which they think are required.

Mr. Brooks: While accepting that valuable work is being done, a notable example is the Mekong Valley in Southern Asia—would my right hon. Friend not agree that this sort of work is particularly important because it encourages collaboration between the riparian States and that, without this, there is a danger of fragmentation of aid programmes?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir, but for the very reason which my hon. Friend mentions—because there are sometimes different national States in the region of major rivers and because of relations between those States—it is not possible to launch effective development. It is a question of timing the initiatives, and this has been done with notable success, for example, on the Indus and the Mekong, which my hon. Friend mentioned. I will certainly watch for further opportunities of this kind.

Singapore

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the total amount of aid being given to Singapore in the current financial year; and how much is envisaged in the next two years.

Mr. Prentice: I estimate that in the current financial year Singapore will receive in normal and special British aid a total of £5·5 million, including £2·8 million for defence aid. This total is expected to increase to between £10 million and £11 million in each of the financial years 1969–70 and 1970–71.

Sir R. Russell: What saving does the right hon. Gentleman think there will be on the withdrawal of defence from Singapore, if aid is to cost this much more?

Mr. Prentice: The overall saving from withdrawing the forces from Singapore will be much larger than the total of special aid to Singapore, which is related to the same process.

Eastern Caribbean

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Overeas Development what progress has been made in carrying out the recommendations in the Tripartite Economic Survey of the Eastern Caribbean through the Regional Development Agency or in other ways.

Mr. Oram: The Regional Development Agency, meetings of which are attended by representatives of the Governments of Britain, Canada and the United States of America, has been set up. Negotiations are still proceeding on the establishment of the Caribbean Development Bank. Through the British Development Division the British aid programme in the Eastern Caribbean has been concentrated and reorientated in line with the development priorities identified by the tripartite survey.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is not much progress, as the survey was presented nearly three years ago?

Mr. Oram: I think that we are making progress, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in dealing with a considerable number of Governments, differences do arise. This, for example, has happened in the case of the Development Bank, but, given that, a good deal of satisfactory progress has been made. For instance, there have been over 90 technical assistance assignments in line with the tripartite survey recommendations, and other achievements.

Educational Equipment

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what study he has made of the pamphlet,Nigeria Looks Ahead, a copy of which is in his possession, with reference to the supply of educational equipment to areas which have suffered from military conflict.

Mr. Prentice: I have read this pamphlet, which is published by the Federal Ministry of Information of Nigeria. We have not yet had any official requests for supplies of educational equipment for areas which have suffered from military conflict, but, as I told my hon. Friend on 21st January, we would consider any such requests sympathetically.—[Vol. 776; c. 223.]

Mr. Dalyell: Could there be discussions with Alhasi Aminu Kano and other Ministers on this point?

Mr. Prentice: The proper procedure is for contacts between the British High Commission in Lagos and the authorities there. My Department has been in touch with our High Commission recently, drawing its attention to this matter and telling it that we are prepared to consider any request for aid sympathetically.

Mr. James Johnson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there must be at least four million Ibos in the areas now administered by Federal forces? Since they are living peacefully and settling down with their fellow Nigerians, is it not important that we give aid of this kind?

Mr. Prentice: I have said that we are prepared to give aid to help the rehabilitation of educational establistments in the areas where the fighting has taken place. We must, of course, await official requests for this from the Nigerian authorities.

Volunteer Programme

Mr. Hooson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many of the volunteers from Great Britain, serving under the British Volunteer Programme at the present time, are from the Principality of Wales; and what steps are being taken to recruit volunteers to this service and to make known, within the Principality, the service that can be rendered through this scheme.

Mr. Oram: There are at present 58 graduate and qualified volunteers and 14 cadet volunteers from the Principality of Wales serving overseas; and increase of 3 over last year. Recruitment of volunteers in Wales, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, is stimulated by promotional campaigns, visits, meetings, distribution of literature to universities and colleges, chambers of commerce and industrial firms.

Mr. Hooson: I am gratified with that Answer, but would the hon. Gentleman ensure that greater publicity is given to the sixth forms and youth organisations, because he will find, I think, that there are many more volunteers available if greater publicity is given to the service?

Mr. Oram: A good deal of publicity is given, but I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should remember, since he refers to sixth forms, that the kind of volunteers which my Ministry particularly helps are the graduates, and they are recruited at universities and from industry.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will increase the direct grant given by Her Majesty's Government to the organisation concerned with voluntary service overseas; and what further plans he has to assist this service.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will increase the direct grant given by Her Majesty's Government to the organisation concerned with voluntary service overseas.

Mr. Oram: The basis of the grant by Her Majesty's Government to all four societies in the British Volunteer Programme for 1969–70 remains as 75 per cent. of the costs incurred by those societies. On this basis, as the costs to the societies increase and as the number of volunteers increases, so does the amount of the grant.
In addition to making a grant to the societies, Her Majesty's Government also pay for other services connected with the volunteer programme; for example, the costs of administration overseas. There are no plans at present to change the basis on which the programme is assisted.

Mr. Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman give greater encouragement to these societies, bearing in mind the tremendous benefit to the countries that have these young people and, even more important, the tremendous benefit to the young people who go out there?

Mr. Oram: I entirely accept the benefit that these young people bestow on the developing countries. We do a great deal to help the voluntary societies. I am not aware of any likely approach by the societies for an increase in grant. Indeed, I had discussions two years ago with them, and one of the large societies resisted any suggestion of an increase because they were anxious to maintain fully the voluntary nature of their work.

Mr. Tinn: In addition to graduates, can my hon. Friend say what is being done to recruit tradesmen and others with practical skills who have a real contribution to make in the scope of services provided?

Mr. Oram: The voluntary societies are aware of my views. They have followed up suggestions that I have made and they have had considerable success in recruiting the kind of young person referred to by my hon. Friend.

Somalia (Higher Education)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what financial aid is being given by Her Majesty's Government to the higher education services of the Republic of Somalia.

Mr. Oram: There is very little higher education in Somalia at the present time, and we have decided that we can best help by offering awards for two years' training at "A" level in Britain, leading to degree or equivalent courses.
We have also recruited two lecturers in English for teacher training colleges in Somalia.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the former Institute in Mogadishu is the nucleus of the future University of Somalia? Is it not important that we should make some gesture to help the English-speaking sector by perhaps sending out a lecturer? I will not ask that we endow a Chair of English at the University, but we should in this way help with English-speaking teachers.

Mr. Oram: One of our principal advisers has been to Somalia and studied the question of a possible university. We shall follow with interest developments in Somalia in higher education, and, if requested, we shall do our utmost to help as far as our resources allow.

Agricultural Advisers

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps he is taking to assist the various developing countries to obtain extra agricultural advisers to help with agricultural expansion in these countries.

Mr. Oram: The number of agricultural staff supplied by my Department to


developing countries has grown since 1963 from 100 a year to nearly 200 a year. There are now some 1,500 British agricultural experts working in agricultural development under our bilateral aid arrangements, and many others in F.A.O. If there is a further expansion in the demand, we would hope to be able to meet it.

Mr. Mills: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is the best way of helping emerging countries? Also, it will help to encourage young people to realise that agriculture is a dignified way of living, which is absolutely vital to these areas.

Mr. Oram: I entirely accept the implication in the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is a demand at the moment which is approved by the Government but which it is not possible to fulfil because of the shortage of suitable personnel?

Mr. Oram: There are at present 169 vacancies, but these are in the normal process of recruitment. I should not say that there is a special bottleneck in this sphere.

Aid (European Co-ordination)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will take the initiative in proposing a plan to co-ordinate the work of member countries of the Council of Europe in regard to aid for the underdeveloped countries.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The Development Assistance Committee of the O.E.C.D. is the forum in which donor countries discuss and agree the co-ordination of their aid activities. All the member countries of the Council of Europe who are donors of aid are also members of this Committee, in addition to the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and Japan.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thank the Minister for that informative reply. But is not the point that a new initiative needs to be taken in whatever forum it happens to be? Would this not be a much more constructive initiative for the future of Europe than the present bout of fisticuffs with France?

Mr. Prentice: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question refers to discussions which we shall be having later.
Concerning the administration of aid, I do not think that we need new machinery. In future we need larger resources. The best way to co-ordinate these facilities is in the wider forum of the O.E.C.D., which reports its activities to the Council of Europe, where they are regularly debated.

Under-developed Countries (World Bank Aid)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will make a statement on British Government policy in regard to assisting the work of the World Bank to aid under-developed countries.

Mr. Prentice: Her Majesty's Government strongly support the work of the World Bank and its two affiliates, the International Development Association and the International Finance Corporation, whose activities are now mainly directed towards assisting developing countries. We welcome the Bank President's plans to increase the group's lending programme, and his proposals for a greater flexibility in the use of its resources.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Can the Minister say what concrete plan the Government have to increase the British contribution to the World Bank and its subsidiaries in order that the maximum advantage may be taken of Mr. McNamara's dynamic leadership, which, for the first time in recent years, offers a guarantee that money raised will be well invested and well spent?

Mr. Prentice: The expansion envisaged by Mr. McNamara takes the form partly of the activities of the main bank, which raises its money on the world money markets, and partly of the activities of I.D.A., which gets a Government contribution. We have pledged our share to the higher replenishment of I.D.A. for the next three-year period.

Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we passed the legislation replenishing our contribution last summer. May I ask whether he can say anything about the other donors? For example, what have the Americans


done so far? Is this a matter which is being discussed with President Nixon while he is over here?

Mr. Prentice: Most of the other donors ratified the agreement. The outgoing United States Congress did not do so. I am hoping that the new American Congress will be able to consider this matter before long. In the meantime, a number of leading donor countries, including Britain, have committed their first year's contribution towards the higher replenishment so that I.D.A. activities can continue.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the Minister agree that the most vital thing concerning I.D.A. and the use of the administrative skills of Mr. McNamara in aid development is to make sure that the American Government are made aware of the importance of replenishment now?

Mr. Prentice: I hope that the American Government will take a view of this matter similar to that of Her Majesty's Government and that the American Congress will follow suit.

Kenya (Resettlement Scheme)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what agreement has been reached with the Kenya Government over the definition of current market value as applying to the 400,000 acre re-settlement scheme in Kenya.

Mr. Oram: The Kenya Government have agreed that, so far as purchases by the Agricultural Development Corporation are concerned, and also purchases for the settlement programme, valuations should continue to be based on the comparative method.

Mr. Wall: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he can confirm that, given the continuance of reasonable valuation, Her Majesty's Government have contributed enough to the land resettlement scheme to enable it to continue for its full four years originally envisaged?

Mr. Oram: I can give the assurance that the scheme is working satisfactorily.

Swaziland (Alienation of Land)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether agreement has now been reached with the

Swazi Government over the land alienated early in this century; and what additional development aid has been promised.

Mr. Oram: The Working Party of experts, to which my right hon. Friend referred in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on the 10th December last, is now in Swaziland examining the land question. When they have reported both Governments will consider holding further discussions. No additional aid has been promised for land acquisition.—[Vol. 775, c. 79–80.]

Mr. Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this question of land is the one outstanding issue between the two Governments? Is it still the hon. Gentleman's intention to deal with it in the context of a development aid programme?

Mr. Oram: We have made it clear to the Swaziland Government that we would welcome their putting land schemes within their development programme. That is how we would prefer to consider them.

Overseas, Aid (Estimates)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will ensure that in future estimates of overseas aid reference is made to the amount of interest and capital repayments made by developing countries.

Mr. Prentice: I am considering these matters in the light of the Seventh Report from the Estimates Committee on Overseas Aid. Without anticipating the White Paper, which I hope to publish shortly, I want to say that I am sympathetic to the Committee's recommendation and will do my best to meet it.

Mr. Goodhart: As it has been estimated that the amount of aid, interest, and capital repayments this year will exceed £50 million, should not the Minister trumpet this figure from the rooftops, as this may help him in his negotiations with the Treasury Ministers who are sitting next to him now?

Mr. Prentice: I always draw attention to these figures when appropriate, and particularly when talking to my hon. Friends at the Treasury.

Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a White Paper. This takes some of us by surprise. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the White Paper is about, and when we can expect it?

Mr. Prentice: It should not take the hon. Gentleman by surprise. I promised it to the House at a time when the hon. Gentleman was present. The White Paper will reply to the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Estimates. I hope to present it within about three weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Import Deposit Scheme (Briarwood Ebauchons)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decision he has made concerning the exclusion of briar-wood ebauchons from the operation of the Import Deposit Scheme; and what are the reasons for his decision.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): The Government are now prepared to add briar root blocks, for pipe manufacture, to the list of exemptions from the import deposit; the necessary Treasury Order will be laid as soon as possible. This is an exceptional case in many of its aspects and I hope it will not arouse unjustified hopes of further concessions.

Mr. Silvester: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, and I promise not to bring any more forward personally, though I cannot vouch for my hon. Friends.

Credit Restrictions

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his discussions with the joint stock banks on his request to them to reduce their lending by a further £150 million.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present and prospective level of clearing bank advances; and what further measures he proposes to restrict credit.

Mr. Harold Lever: The clearing banks were asked last November to reduce their restricted lending to 98 per cent. of its devaluation level by mid-March this year. In January these banks were about 3 per cent. (approaching £150 million) above the target figure.
In the recent exchange of letters with the clearing banks, the Bank of England re-emphasised the importance which the authorities attached to achievement of this target. The target has not been changed and my right hon. Friend attaches the greatest importance to its achievement.

Mr. Barnett: I am conscious of the extremely difficult position of local bank managers in trying to reduce the facilities they give, but does not the refusal by the central banks make it very difficult for the Chancellor to pursue his economic policies? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that his right hon. Friend has adequate powers under the 1946 Act to enable him to pursue the economic policies that he wants to?

Mr. Lever: I am satisfied that the Chancellor has adequate powers, and I would not accept that the banks have refused to co-operate. Indeed, there is a long record of co-operation in a difficult area here by the clearing banks.

Mr. Biffen: Referring to the second part of my Question No. 28, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government have no intention of extending their statutory powers over credit financing to cover techniques not currently covered by hire-purchase restrictions?

Mr. Lever: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not seriously expect so comprehensive an assurance in the course of a reply to a supplementary question.

Mr. John Smith: Would not it help if the Government were to hasten the payment of their debts to the private sector, debts which, owing to legislation of one sort and another, such as S.E.T., have increased very greatly?

Mr. Lever: I am not aware that Her Majesty's Government are in default to any citizen in respect of their debts.

Mr. J. T. Price: Would my hon. Friend be surprised to learn that he has my full support at any rate in all steps


taken by the Treasury to ensure that this country lives within its means for the good of both its national health and its international commitments? Until we -do that, we shall continually be in the red. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will use every effort of his Department to see that people do not borrow money from the banks to speculate on the stock market?

Mr. Lever: I am grateful for, but unsurprised by, the constructive attitude adopted by my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the credit ceilings are such as to discourage the kind of activities which he thinks would be inadvisable.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the extent to which the Government are currently using interest rates as part of the policy of restricting total demand on available resources.

Mr. Harold Lever: Levels of interest rates in this country do not depend solely on decisions of the authorities. In so far as they do, it is the Government's policy that they should be consistent with the requirements of domestic and external policy. This is not simply a matter of direct effect upon demand; the economic consequences of changes in interest rates are highly complex.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it would be much more preferable, if the Government seek to ration credit, that they should do so through the market mechanism by allowing the Bank Rate to move upwards, rather than attempt to sub-contract this task on to the clearing banks and ask them to carry out a private administrative system?

Mr. Lever: The two methods of restricting credit are complementary, rather than alternative as the hon. Gentleman implies.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government have taken the law unto themselves in this matter, as they have done with the deposits on import duty, collaring the lot and paying no interest whatsoever?

Mr. Lever: It is in the nature of Governments that they are there, with the approval of Parliament, to take the law unto themselves, but under our Constitution

they require the assistance and approval of Members of the House.

Investment (Tax Incentives)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effects of present tax incentives to industry for investment in new plant and machinery.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): The question of investment incentives has recently been under review by the N.E.D.C., and the Government are currently examining various aspects of investment policy. But I am not sure how far it is possible to isolate the effects of tax allowances from the effects of the other measures included in the present system of incentives.

Mr. Barnett: As there are clearly genuine doubts about the effectiveness of the direct incentive of investment grants, would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is clearly some incentive in that out of the cash flow that arises, and is it not important that he should consider doing something about reducing the period of delay between the date of purchase and the date of payment of the grant, which would affect the cash flow, and very likely improve the cash incentive effect?

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend knows that the period has been reduced.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: As the amount of investment in manufacturing industry, which attracts investment grants, fell last year to a level as low as it was in 1961, is not there at least a prima facie case for saying that investment grants are wasteful and not helpful to investment? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider replacing the present system by one of initial allowances, and depreciation allowances over a fixed period?

Mr. Diamond: As I have already indicated, the Government are reviewing the whole field.

Mr. Higgins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the average period of delay is now for the payment of these grants, and how it compares with the period when receipts under the tax allowance system might have been expected?

Mr. Diamond: I cannot answer that off hand, but if the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade he will no doubt get an accurate answer.

Premium Bonds Savings Scheme

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the prevailing high interest rates, if he will raise the rate of interest from which is paid the prize money for Premium Savings Bonds.

Mr. Harold Lever: My right hon. Friend is currently reviewing all possibilities for increasing savings.

Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the capital value of Premium Bonds is eroded by inflation, and that the income yield is now not compatible with what can be got from debentures? Will he review this so as to tap this very important form of savings?

Mr. Lever: I shall ensure that all these points are kept in our minds.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to avoid the unfavourable effect on sterling of impending publications of Supplementary Estimates, he will announce simultaneously with their publication the total net savings effected on the current estimates.

Mr. Diamond: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20th February, 1969.—[Vol. 778, c. 779.]

Motor Taxation

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the aggregation of motor taxation comprising fuel duty, road fund licences, and purchase tax on new non-goods vehicles for the year 1963–64, and the comparable figure estimated for the year 1968–69; and how much is the increase as a percentage of such aggregation, and the increase in sterling between the two respective years stated.

Mr. Diamond: The 1963–64 aggregate is £811 million and the estimated 1968–69 aggregate is £1,595 million, a crude increase of 97 per cent. or £784 million. Over the same period the numbers of private cars grew by approximately 46 per cent. Consequently the comparable increase, after adjusting for the increased number and use of vehicles, and allowing for changes in purchasing power, was 23 per cent.

Sir G. Nabarro: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the fierce resistance to all proposals from the Treasury to increase motor taxation further, and will he take this fully into account in the Chancellor's forthcoming Budget?

Mr. Diamond: I have observed the nature of the comments made by those who are not wholly in favour of this kind of taxation.

United States Tax System

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he has made of the proposals recently published by the United States Treasury to reform the entire federal United States tax system, a copy of which has been sent to him; and whether he will consider introducing such a comprehensive reform in this country.

Mr. Diamond: I have seen reports of these proposals. When I have received full details I will certainly consider to what extent they are relevant to this country.

Mr. Baker: When the Chief Secretary is examining these proposals will be appreciate, first, that they introduce the important principle that no American taxpayer shall pay more than 50 per cent. of his income in taxation and, secondly, that these reforms will be debated in the open by a Congressional committee? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is the right way to introduce tax reforms, rather than the system which we adopt?

Mr. Diamond: There is, as usual, a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says. He will recollect, however, that a major tax reform was introduced in this country in a similar way by having a White Paper published and considerable discussion taking place in advance of legislation?

Vehicle Excise Duty

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a further statement concerning his inquiry into matters relating to the annual licence fee for motor cars.

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman must await the report of the Select Committee.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am aware of that, but has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer blundered into a damaging error in saying—it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 3rd February last, c. 38—that the sum is never printed on a motor car licence form whereas all hon. Members know from experience that it is often printed? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his right hon. Friend should now retract that damaging and erroneous statement?

Mr. Diamond: I am aware that somebody has blundered, but I would not care to say who it is.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. May I inquire from you, Mr. Speaker, by what machinery this Question appears on the Order Paper today, when this matter is under consideration—and is, therefore, sub judice for the time being—by a Select Committee upstairs? How did it come about that facilities were given for this matter to be debated by the man concerned, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)?

Mr. Speaker: The Question itself is in order. I thought that the supplementary question and answer grew near to talking about a matter which we have referred to a Select Committee.

Valuations, Arundel

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what criteria a deputy valuation officer recently recommended a reduction in the gross figure for property and land at Arundel from £2,100 to £1,850 and in the rateable value from £1,722 to £1,513, and a reduction in the gross figure for another property there from £2,060 to £2,000 and in the rateable figure from £1,688 to £1,638.

Mr. Harold Lever: I assume that the Question refers to recent reductions in the

rating assessments on Arundel Park and Arundel Castle. The valuation officer recommended reductions in the Arundel Castle figures only. These reductions, of £60 in the gross value and £50 in the rateable value, recognise that there is inevitably an element of imprecision where larger values are involved, and particularly so in the valuation of such an unusual property.

Mr. Bidwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that a valuation officer stated in court that the noble Lord the Duke of Norfolk's place was in danger of falling into the hands of long-haired pop stars? If the noble Duke is in difficulties, should he not apply for a rate rebate, just as thousands of people throughout the country must do in these circumstances?

Mr. Lever: Rateable values are fixed by the open market price of the property concerned and not in relation to possible special and specially opulent tenants.

Invisible Earnings

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution was made to the United Kingdom's overseas invisible earnings in 1968 by each of the following categories, namely, banking, insurance, merchanting and other financial institutions.

Mr. Harold Lever: The 1968 estimates are not yet available.

Mr. Baker: Would not the Financial Secretary agree that, when available, they are likely to show that the invisible earnings of the City of London were at an all-time record, which is not bad for an ale-house and gin and tonic set-up? Will he persuade his right hon. Friend that instead of castigating the City he should congratulate it on keeping this country solvent?

Mr. Lever: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is a favourite target for the speculative distortion of what he has said. However, my right hon. Friend and the Government greatly value the contribution made by the City institutions concerned to our invisible exports.

Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Alison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he estimates that the reduction or elimination


of his borrowing requirement this financial year and next will correspondingly obviate the need to finance Government expenditure by borrowing overseas or running down gold and currency reserves.

Mr. Harold Lever: This Question seems to rest on a false premise. The amount of finance accruing to, or provided by, the Government as a result of external transactions reflects mainly the balance of payments and flows of foreign exchange, and is not directly connected with the size of the central Government's borrowing requirement or surplus.

Mr. Alison: Will the Financial Secretary recognise, nevertheless, that overseas borrowing and dipping into the currency and gold reserves has played a substantial part in meeting the Government's financial needs in the last four or five years? Will he also recognise that this sort of dipping into the reserves is increasing the burden of our overseas deficit and cannot go on?

Mr. Lever: That supplementary question is not directly related to the Question and is only a partial comment on a very complex overall situation.

War Widows' Pensions

Mr. Turton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will end the anomaly under which British war widows pay Income Tax on pensions awarded under the Royal Warrant but are exempt from Income Tax on pensions awarded by the French Government.

Mr. Diamond: Certain pensions paid by the French Government are exempt from tax in this country by virtue of the double taxation agreement with France, which dates from 1950. But this has never been held to justify exempting war widows' pensions paid by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fact that relief from having to pay Income Tax by war widows on these pensions would not represent an inflationary measure in the forthcoming Budget and would be a popular step for him to take?

Mr. Diamond: I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend what the right hon. Gentleman has said on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. COMMITMENTS

Mr. Judd: asked the Prime Minister when he will call a conference of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation heads of Government to consider existing North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commitments.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Judd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Would he not agree that the effectiveness of a defensive alliance is related to the moral fibre of the cause which it exists to protect? Is it not essential that Britain and others should increase pressure on the Governments of countries like Greece and Portugal, whose regressive policies at home and in Africa undermine the objectives and effectiveness of N.A.T.O.?

The Prime Minister: I have a later Question on the Order Paper about Greece. I have answered a number of Questions recently about Portugal. The bona fides of N.A.T.O. depend on its task in securing a real security in Europe, a security which, as both the President of the United States and I said at Heathrow Airport yesterday, is related to a situation where, from strength, we can move to an easement of tension between East and West.

Mr. Heath: Would the Prime Minister agree that the present visit of the President of the United States gives us an opportunity to have talks of the kind suggested in the Question? Would he also agree that the whole House welcomes the statement of the President to the N.A.T.O. Council yesterday that he proposes to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Union over a wide range of issues and that, before doing so, there will be consultations with members of the Alliance and that these will continue during the negotiations?

The Prime Minister: I join with the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming what President Nixon said at N.A.T.O. and what he said on the same subject on his arrival in London last night. The N.A.T.O. Council in Rejkavik last summer put out very warm feelers for


an easement of tension on an advantageous basis with Europe, but Czechoslovakia made that much more difficult. It is the aim of the President of the United States and of us that, from a situation of undoubted strength, we should be able to move towards a détente with the East.

Mr. Shinwell: Whatever the motive underlying the Question, does not my right hon. Friend consider that with all the leaks, misunderstandings, whisperings and rumours all over the place, it is about time we ceased having these conferences and began to mind our own business?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend had a long and distinguished record in relation to N.A.T.O. when he was a Minister. Our own business is to strengthen N.A.T.O.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: While President Nixon is in London will the Prime Minister publicly express our appreciation of the contribution made to the security of Europe by the Americans over a period of many years? Will the right hon. Gentleman also emphasise on behalf of Britain our determination to bear our full share of the cost of the Western Alliance wherever it may be needed?

The Prime Minister: I have already expressed this sentiment to President Nixon and I will see that the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman are appropriately conveyed to him. As for our contribution to N.A.T.O., the President is aware, as I have no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, of the substantially increased contribution to N.A.T.O. which we are making, which we will progressively make and which is possible due to the fact that we have withdrawn and are withdrawing excessive British commitments in other parts of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister approximately how many petition's, resolutions, letters and other communications he has received about Her Majesty's Government's policy in relation to Biafra.

The Prime Minister: I have received over 2,000 communications of all types about the situation in Nigeria. Some two-thirds of these were received during the months of June to August last year.

Mr. Allaun: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is deep and widespread concern over this matter? Will he discuss with President Nixon, who is not too far away, the proposals made by Senator Kennedy and many other senators for United Nations intervention, since there is a danger of this becoming a big-Power conflict? Will he also urge on the O.A.U. the proposal for a peace formula——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be brief. We have many Questions to get through.

Mr. Allaun: —made by Lord Brockway?

The Prime Minister: If this were to become the cause of a big-Power conflict, it would not be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. We have our responsibilities and our long-standing traditional relationships. My hon. Friend, who is usually fairly sensitive to the feelings of indigenous African peoples, will be aware that 33 out of the 37 members of the O.A.U. have supported the Federal Government in Nigeria.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Does the Prime Minister agree that only a few days ago the whole of the W.E.U. condemned our supply of arms to Nigeria? If it comes to statistics, will he give some statistics of the people who are being killed in Biafra today?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that all the member countries of W.E.U. would feel that this is predominantly an African question and would wish to be guided by the views of Africans on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, whose partisanship in this matter is well known and respected, is totally wrong in the deduction he draws from our supply of arms. I have already told him—this was the view following the Commonwealth Conference—that if I thought that our cutting off arms unilaterally would help to bring peace to Nigeria certainly we would be very ready to consider a


change of policy. I believe that it would have precisely the opposite effect.

Mr. Heath: As the Prime Minister must know, there have in the course of the last few days been renewed reports of attacks by air on the civilian population in towns in Biafra, in particular by a British observer who saw them himself in Umuahi. What action has the Prime Minister taken with the Federal Nigerian Government to bring British influence to bear to prevent these apparently deliberate attacks on the civilian population?

The Prime Minister: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. We have not had, as far as I am aware, a report from international observers on this matter, including our own observer. I prefer to wait for that. We have at all times made clear our horror of even accidental bombing of civilian targets; and if there were any suggestion of their being deliberate our views would be made very clear. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that we would not be in a position to state any views if we accepted the advice of some of his and my hon. Friends.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGE CLAIMS (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION

Mr. Lane: asked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken this year to co-ordinate the work of Ministers concerned with wage or salary claims.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends already work closely together on these matters.

Mr. Lane: Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the outcome of the recent Post Office dispute which cost £2 million in lost revenue, in which there was a failure of communications, not so much between the Postmaster-General and the union as between the Postmaster-General and his colleagues, and from which, as usual, the main sufferers were the public?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to form his own inaccurate deductions from the facts. He will also be aware that this matter was very fully debated on 13th February.

Mr. Molloy: Should not the work of Ministers involved in salaries and wages

control now gradually diminish so that the trade union movement can assess its own way forward and go its own way and carry out the job that it was designed to do, after acknowledging that some of the efforts of this Government were required at a very tricky stage in our economy?

The Prime Minister: We are only too anxious that the T.U.C. should do so, as I stated in my hon. Friend's constituency on 3rd March, I think it was, two years ago—[Laughter.]—at about 9 o'clock at night. My hon. Friend will also no doubt be aware, having heard so much in 1966 about a slogan 9, 5, 1, which was itself inaccurate, that as a result of the coordination referred to in the Question the figures for last year, to which I hope the Leader of the Opposition will give full publicity and the support of his ability, were wages 7 per cent., prices 5 per cent., production 5 per cent., productivity 7 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he is having with the Prime Ministers of Council of Europe countries over the position of Greece in relation to the Council.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Winnick: In view of the articles which are appearing in the British Press about the continued physical brutalities and physical tortures carried out by the Greek dictatorship, is it not clear that the Greek Government are not fit to continue in the Council of Europe; and, extending the question a little, would the Prime Minister now state whether it is his intention to discuss the Greek issue with the President of the United States?

The Prime Minister: As regards actions of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend, we have made clear our attitude on these from the outset. Also, I repeat that our objective remains the restoration of democratic liberties in Greece. As to the question of the fitness of Greece to remain a member of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, this matter is being investigated impartially by the European Commission of Human


Rights at this time and I think that it would be wrong for me to prejudge what the Eupropean Commission might decide to find.

Sir J. Rodgers: As Greece is the only ally that we have in Eastern Europe and as she is also a member of N.A.T.O., would the Prime Minister refrain in future from using such phrases as "bestialities" in reference to that Government?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that our N.A.T.O. allies include Turkey as well as Greece. Membership of an important alliance is one thing. The question of the alleged brutalities that my hon. Friend mentioned must be impartially investigated by the European Commission of Human Rights. It would be wrong for either the hon. Gentleman or me to prejudge that examination.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT NIXON (TALKS)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the President of the United States on co-operation in the marine sciences and development of the ocean environment.

Mr. Boston: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with the President of the United States of America.

Mr. Murray: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Nixon on the possibility of a summit meeting between the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friends will be aware that my discussions with President Nixon are still in progress.

Mr. Dalyell: Can consideration be given to the problems of the actual emplacement of undersea weaponry on the seabed? This is rather different from Polaris-Poseidon problems.

The Prime Minister: I have not in fact spoken to President Nixon on this question, but my hon. Friend will be aware and will welcome, as I welcome, the fact that the United States has now proposed that the 18-nation Disarmament Committee should take up the question of arms

limitation on the seabed. I think that this is the real forum for it. We are supporting this proposal and we are most ready to discuss the arms control aspects of the seabed in the E.N.D.C. when it reconvenes.

Mr. Murray: Is the Prime Minister aware that I am prepared to swap the United States and the Soviet Union for France at the present time? In view of world tensions, particularly in the Middle East and in Africa, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider whether a secret meeting is not necessary?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the disposition of these great territories is exactly within the control of my hon. Friend, nor is it being discussed in the talks with President Nixon. The Middle East and other areas of tension are being discussed in the talks here in London. My hon. Friend will be aware of the agreement of the four Powers, which are the four permanent members of the Security Council, to discuss the question of the Middle East in the Security Council. I am sure that this is right. We must await the progress of those discussions.

Mr. Marten: Has the Prime Minister drawn the attention of the President of the United States to Motion 171 on the Order Paper which is signed by 105 Members and calls upon the Government to undertake an examination of a free trade area?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman entirely under-rates the capacity of President Nixon's briefing sources if he feels that he had not already seen for himself the Motion on the Order Paper. Conscious as I was this morning, however, that President Nixon might possibly not have had time to digest its full implications, still less the importance of its signatories, I did, in fact, feel it appropriate to draw it to his attention, though, unfortunately, I could not remember the actual number on the Order Paper. I contented myself with giving President Nixon some indication of its contents.

Mr. Heffer: As my right hon. Friend a couple of weeks ago in this Chamber agreed that he would consult President Nixon regarding Greece, will he indicate whether the question of Greece has been


discussed with President Nixon? Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that the official Greek junta Press has been deliberately falsifying exchanges of opinion in the British House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: I did see a Press report in the miscellany column of The Guardian suggesting that some authority in Greece had rather misrepresented, in the column"s own phrase, an Answer I gave in the House last week. I have not had a chance of examining that. However, it would not be the first time that statements that I have made in the House have been misrepresented in the Press of other countries.

Mr. Thorpe: While welcoming any measure towards freer trade, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has indicated to the President that it is in America's interest that there is a strong and independent Europe, that this needs political integration, that, therefore, N.A.F.T.A. is no alternative to the Community and that we are pursuing our application in that regard?

The Prime Minister: It is my judgment that President Nixon is capable of forming his own judgment on these important matters. Indeed, if that were not so, the right hon. Gentleman might have an opportunity to press the point on him later this afternoon. The President has been made fully aware, as I think he was aware all along, of our attitude to the European Economic Community—that our application is in to join the Community and that the application remains in.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS No. 2)

Bill to make further provision with respect to civil liability for damage caused by animals straying on the highway, presented by Sir Barnett Janner; supported by Mr. Arthur Probert, Mr. Donald Coleman, Sir Stephen McAdden, Mr. Leo Abse, Sir Myer Galpern, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Albert Roberts, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. Michael English, and Mr. R. Graham Page; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

FEUDAL REFORM (SCOTLAND)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable vassals, proprietors, &c., to require the redemption of feu duties; to limit the legal effects of feu charters; to make compensation on termination of long leases obligatory; to enable allocation of feu duty to be required; and for purposes connected therewith.
On a previous occasion, the Secretary of State for Scotland declined to refer the predecessor of my proposed Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee to be considered in relation to its principle under Standing Order No. 62, but I hope that he will change his mind about this Bill, which is a much simplified version of the previous Bill. I hope that any criticisms which hon. Members had of its predecessor have been overcome. It was argued that the feudal system in Scotland is too complicated a matter to be dealt with by a Private Member's Bill. My answer has been to draft an even simpler Bill. It was claimed that the Government were already looking into the whole question of reform of the conveyancing system in Scotland. Maybe. But they have left themselves very little time for action. Unless legislation is initiated very shortly, it will be too late to get anything done in the life of this Parliament.
Scotland's archaic feudal system can obstruct development, exert financial pressures not far short of blackmail on prospective developers, and even overrule a local planning authority. Americans and Australians who have talked to me about the system are astounded that we still permit its existence in the 20th century. Europeans, who abolished it centuries ago, just think that it is comic.
Once upon a time, the Sovereign was the owner of all land. He granted it to vassals in return for goods and services, including military service. In the Guthrie Report of 1952 the Sovereign was said to be
paramount superior of all feudal land in Scotland",
while a proprietor, who is the same as a vassal under the feudal system, is defined as
'the person holding the estate at the lowest point in the vertical chain.


To quote paragraph 10 of the much more recent Halliday Report:
The technical language of the system … perpetuated from an earlier era, has marked psychological disadvantages today. The terms 'feudal', 'superior' and 'vassal' and the obligation to make payment of 'feu duty' in perpetuity ail tend to suggest to a proprietor that his status is inferior. It is evident that the use of those archaic terms detracts from a sense of full ownership …".
But there is a lot more to it than words. Apart from being an anachronism in a property-owning democracy, and an immense complication in the legislation relating to conveyancing, the feudal system provides a "second planning permission" which may or may not be wisely used. It has been argued that the feu system makes building land cheaper by spreading the financial burden, but in practice building costs are higher in Scotland. The system merely adds to the cost. There is no deliberate lowering of the price of a house to allow for the feu duty.
In Europe, there is no such thing. The old Germans, as described by Tacitus, had no feudal system. It never took root in Norway. Under the ancient "odel" system, the Norwegians are a real property-owning democracy. In France, feudalism was finally abolished on 4th August, 1789, when feudal dues and services were made redeemable by purchase. All personal services, as distinct from dues on property, were abolished without compensation. What is more, no manorial dues had to be redeemed unless the landlord could show an original title to the land. How many of our feudal superiors could show such a title today?
Much of the land which is now in the hands of hereditary land owners was simply appropriated from the Church at the time of the Reformation or grabbed in the Highlands after the Heritable Jurisdictions Abolition Act, 1746. Where it was not actually purchased or taken by force of threat or reprisal, the land was granted by the Sovereign, who before the influx of Norman families from the South had no claim to the land, in return for sundry services.
Today, if the vassal or proprietor wishes to redeem a feu duty by a once-and-for-all payment, he has no right to do so. May I give one or two examples of how it works in practice? A company purchases a site, say,

for building a whisky distillery. The purchaser obtains planning permission from the local authority and approval for a grant from the Board of Trade, but he may have overlooked the small annual feu duty payable on the site, because it is only the tip of the iceberg.
Beneath it there may be a mass of feudal conditions embodied in a feu charter. The feudal superior, who may not be the man who sold the land, sees the opportunity of making some money and refuses the purchaser permission to build on the ground that the distillery might destroy the amenity of the area. It may take several thousand pounds to persuade the superior to waive his feudal rights and overcome his aesthetic objections.
Take the man, just demobbed, who bought up some old Nissen huts situated close to a fine sandy beach and to a river estuary popular for sailing and fishing. By hard work and ploughing back the profits over a period of 20 years, he built up a valuable summer chalet business with excellent amenities. When he wished to sell and to purchase an annuity so that he could live in comfortable retirement in his old age, he was firmly held by the feudal superior. On the one hand, the superior could refuse permission for further development, thus putting a ceiling on the sale price of the property; on the other, under the terms of the feu charter, the superior could reserve the right of pre-emption and could come in and purchase the property at the highest price offered. Unless my proposed Bill is enacted, he stands to lose about half of his investment.
There was the similar case of a blacksmith who wished to expand his business into a light engineering works equipped to undertake all types of repairs to agricultural machinery and the construction of equipment such as snow ploughs, cattle crushes and steel trusses for the roofs of farm buildings. His working area was severely restricted and his buildings were archaic. He was proprietor of a piece of land suitable for development, but, although he obtained planning permission and Board of Trade approval for a grant, the feudal system provided an insurmountable obstacle. The feudal superior would not grant him a waiver. A development which would have provided a valuable service for the area, additional


employment, and some reward for the blacksmith's enterprise was lost—at least, for the time being.
The present feudal system permits a racket which is to be recommended to the unscrupulous. All that is necessary is to find a piece of land with planning permission for the building of houses. For example, suppose a developer purchases 10 acres of building land with a feu duty of £20 per annum on it. He divides the land into 20 plots, builds a house on each of them and sells each house with a feu duty of £10. Finally, he sells the block of feu duties, now worth £200 per annum, as an investment for a capital sum of £2,000.
Not only has he made a profit from nothing in addition to anything he may make on the house, but he has left the proprietors of the houses with a feu duty in perpetuity and the purchaser of the block of feu duties with a "second planning permission" on the whole housing estate. In addition to annual interest of 10 per cent. on the capital, the purchaser, now the superior, has a chance of dividends in the form of waivers on fuedal conditions in relation to any further developments on the individual properties on the estate.
A parallel situation arises in the case of long leases, since no compensation is payable by the landlord in respect of any developments or improvements carried out by the tenants in course of the lease. The nearer the date when the lease expires, the higher the price the landlord can ask for redemption of the ground rent. So much for the restrictive effects of the feudal system in practice.
The Bill does not seek to deprive individuals or companies of their investment. It has the simple aims of giving the feuar the legal right to redeem feu duty or multure by payment of a capital sum of ten times the annual payment, subject to certain rights of appeal; of invalidating any obstruction of planning authority permission by a feudal superior; of avoiding sub-infeudation and the malpractices arising therefrom; and of ensuring fair compensation to the tenant for any improvements on termination of a long lease.
Planning permission would be reinvested in the local authority, which is responsible to the community through its elected representatives. It would no longer depend on the whim of a feudal superior who may be good or bad, wise or unwise, but who, under the present system, is answerable to nobody.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Davidson, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, and Mr. Russell Johnston.

FEUDAL REFORM (SCOTLAND)

Bill to enable vassals, proprietors, &c., to require the redemption of feu duties; to limit the legal effects of feu charters; to make compensation on termination of long leases obligatory; to enable allocation of feu duty to be required; and for purposes connected therewith; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st March and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
First, I want to express my appreciation to the Foreign Secretary for sparing time in the middle of what must be an extremely busy day—the only full day on which President Nixon is in London—to come here and answer this debate. It is also evidence of the importance which he attaches—rightly, in my view, and as Mr. Speaker did yesterday—to this matter.
The House of Commons on this occasion has not only a right but a duty to seek an inquiry and to try to uncover the events and facts behind the negotiations which the right hon. Gentleman told us about yesterday. In my perhaps limited experience, I have found that diplomatic channels are sometimes clogged; frequently leak; and are nearly always shrouded. Therefore, from time to time, it is no bad thing for Parliament to have the opportunity to take off a manhole cover and see what is going on underneath.
I preface my remarks by expressing on my behalf, and on behalf, I think, of many right hon. and hon. Members, sympathy with our Ambassador in Paris. Many of us know him as a dedicated European and I was personally most gratified by the unqualified support which he received yesterday from the Foreign Secretary during his statement. What has happened must be a bitter disappointment to all his hopes.
Secondly, I should like to explain my own experience, such as it is, of liaison with the French. I had some experience of it during the war, between the British and Free French squadrons of the S.A.S. for months in the desert. I later had the luck to spend four years at our embassy in Paris. I say this simply to indicate that I am in some position to appreciate the great difficulties there are in liaison between the two countries.
I have from time to time been ruefully impressed by the fact that, even when both sides are seeking the same objective and with the best will in the world, their interpretations of words, which they both well know, to be entirely

different. This is, I am afraid, a sad fact. So, if I seem to lean towards what could, I suppose, be construed as a French interpretation—and I assure the Foreign Secretary that it comes from no inside knowledge of any kind—it stems from no malice on my part towards Her Majesty's Government, but simply from the fact that I should like to attempt to help the House in this inquiry and to mitigate the damage done in so far as it lies within the power of an ordinary back bencher to do so.
This morning, I read the Foreign Secretary's statement of yesterday with great care and I agree that, in many respects, it is convincing. But it is easy to rationalise after the event; and there is nothing really gained by rationalising failure—and this was a failure of diplomacy. If it was not, if the Government believe that it was a success, it will be for the right hon. Gentleman to explain how that can be.
What, then, was the true objective? There have been many opinions and suggestions about this. Last Sunday, the Observer asked:
Is the new flare-up between Britain and de Gaulle a new stage in the Anglo-French war? Or was it a genuine attempt at dialogue which failed?
Was it, as has been suggested elsewhere, the second objective initially, and which suffered a change mid-way, so to speak? I am assuming that it was, indeed, the second objective—a genuine attempt at a dialogue. I think that this is the only reasonable assumption to make at the beginning of the story. That it failed, there can be no question, and that the failure was due to a mixture of misunderstanding and misjudgment, few will deny. I shall seek to deal with both aspects, for they are closely linked.
First, the House should note that this meeting or luncheon between Mr. Soames and President de Gaulle was a téte à téte. They were alone. No one else was present and, of course, to anyone who has been acquainted with what the French call the métier, it is a nightmare to professional diplomats when this occurs. Most of us remember the story of Rambouillet and doubtless there have been many previous examples of misunderstandings.
I do not criticise the Ambassador for this. There are pros and cons. If a third person is present, this reduces the risk


of misunderstanding. But, on the other hand, the two principals are less likely to talk as frankly as they would if alone. But it is a fact in this situation.
I am not saying or hinting that the Ambassador misunderstood what was said. The matter is not as simple as that; indeed, it is very complicated. The House will recognise that President de Gaulle is notorious for his oracular and abstract style of speech. There were two subsequent accounts after the meeting, as I understand—one written and checked subsequently by the Ambassador with one of the officials at the Elysée, and one by the General himself.
But even the Ambassador's notes are surely capable, as are any other notes in such a situation, of being interpreted with different emphases—even an emphasis that was not necessarily intended by the Ambassador when he wrote that. What I want to know from the Foreign Secretary is: was the General really talking in such precise and specific terms as has been reported so widely in the Press, and as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to make clear in his statement to the House yesterday? For the right hon. Gentleman was very precise in what he said.
I want to take four passages from his statement which seem to indicate possible sources of misunderstanding. The first was the phrase he used that the General wanted "a Europe completely independent of the United States", a serious proposition. These were exploratory talks. The General was talking not about Europe as we know it now, of the Six, that is, but of something very much larger, including the whole of E.F.T.A., and possibly Spain. This is a different thing altogether. Was it so wildly improper of the General, in those circumstances to envisage a time when this much greater Europe would be in a position to defend herself, as any other mighty conglomeration of States or super States would do? Was it really so very serious to suggest that, and is it not to some extent what President Nixon appears to be advocating: that Europe should move towards such a time in any case?
Secondly, there is the phrase "the disappearance of N.A.T.O.", used by the

Foreign Secretary. Was this really what the General insisted on in the interview? Was it not that the Ambassador asked him at a certain moment, interjected into the conversation perhaps, the question, "Does this mean that you wish us, the British, to get out of N.A.T.O.?" and was has reply not: "No, that is not what I mean."? I may well be wrong, but I would be grateful for clarification.
Thirdly, I would like to take the phrase that the E.E.C., the Communities, would change into "a looser form of free trade area". Here again, I submit to the House that the General's economic pronouncements, as we have known them down the years, have been fairly loose themselves. I wonder whether this is to be treated with exactly the weight and seriousness which the Foreign Secretary indicated yesterday.
Fourthly, there is the matter of the inner Council of four, within his new idea of Europe. Again, he was talking of a different Europe, not the Europe as we know it in E.E.C. today. Is this not, to some extent at least, a familiar idea? I cannot pin down precisely when he said this previously, although I have sought to, but a number of people have suggested to me that the General has talked in these terms before.
Is it not at least something which the Ambassador, the Government, the Foreign Office, should have regarded as normal, in the circumstances, for him to say, or at least as not an unexpected thing for him to say? This was the first time, this luncheon, for many sad and bitter months, that there had been a frank personal exchange between a British Ambassador and the President of France. A great deal hung on it, and my submission is that the account of the talks afterwards by the Ambassador should have been interpreted in the widest sense.
There should have been an attempt to seek clarification if things were not entirely clear, or if it were thought necessary by the Foreign Secretary to qualify, then our qualifications should have been presented in suitable language. That should have been the sequence after the document was received.
I turn to the trap which it has been alleged could have been behind the General's offer. The fact that he invited the British Government to initiate talks


could, I grant, be made to look as if there were some kind of trap. But we all of us by this time have some idea of the General and his manner of presentation. It is not likely that he would regard it as necessary and serious if he invited the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to talk with him personally. As Head of State, presumably he could not have come here. Is it not likely that he would have said to the Ambassador, in his somewhat lofty manner, "If your Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary wish to discuss these matters I should be delighted."? A phrase of this kind could be interpreted as an invitation to the British Government to initiate talks. At the same time, it is not really the same thing as saying, "You have got to start it." It is a matter of emphasis.
I come now to the main point I seek to make, and this is about the matter of confidentiality.

Mr. Ivor Richard: If what happened was that President de Gaulle actually requested that the British Government should initiate a proposal for talks, in other words, if there was no misunderstanding and the request came from him, that we should put a request for talks, what would the hon. Gentleman say then?

Mr. Hastings: I am seeking clarification on this point. I am simply suggesting that the sort of phrase which could quite plausibly have been used by the General might not have had the same sinister implication as what I think the hon. Gentleman is now hinting at. I hope that we shall hear later from the Foreign Secretary whether I am right.
I turn to confidentiality. The Foreign Secretary referred yesterday to "confidentiality from the public at large." He said that the Government were well aware that the French regarded the talks as within that category, but that the British Government never gave any assurance about the allies. Subsequently, the British Government decided to tell all the Chancellories in the E.E.C. Now, the Foreign Office was not born yesterday. It knows perfectly well that if it initiates statements of this importance in something like six capitals all over Europe, a leak is a virtual certainty. There can be no two ways about it. Moreover, there

were 10 or eight days—depending on whether one judges it from the moment the Ambassador's telegram must have arrived in the Foreign Office, or the moment that he cleared the text with the official from the Elysée—in which to think this over—10 days in which nothing occurred.
The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that he could not put himself in the position, and these words are critical to the argument, of "appearing to ask permission to inform our allies of something they had a right to know". I would ask him this: on what basis are the French or anyone else to assess precisely how we, the British, will exempt from confidential exchanges passages or propositions which we unilaterally consider other Governments have "a right to know"?
Is it not possible that the other members of E.E.C., and, for all I know, the Americans, rather than contemplating the haloes with which the British Government may believe they are adorned, are wondering how far they can go the next time they conduct confidential talks with the British Government, and at what point the British Government will decide that what they have been told is necessary knowledge for our allies elsewhere? How much of the current talks, for instance, with President Nixon, shall we divulge? Surely N.A.T.O. will be discussed, probably has been already. There are many members of N.A.T.O. and on the precedent as presented yesterday by the Foreign Secretary we would consider it perfectly proper to impart that information to members of N.A.T.O. without telling the Americans.
This is not worthy of the Foreign Secretary and it is the principal point I wish to make this afternoon. At the very least the right hon. Gentleman could have insisted in the interval to the French Government that the allies must be told and then sought an agreed communiqué. This is normal diplomatic practice. Why was it not done? In my opinion, if we had done that, it would have been the end of the talks and the attempt to heal the breach would have been over, without question; but something of existing relations could have been safeguarded, instead of destroying them, as is the case in the present circumstances.
I believe that there is real evidence, which I accept, of the intention of the French President to restrict this exchange to Heads of State level in so far as it was possible. This is reflected by the extremely restricted number of people, officials, politicians or Ministers, who knew anything about it at all. How many people knew here by comparison? Is the Foreign Secretary able to give us these comparative figures, and would he not agree that the very small number of people involved in Paris at the Quai d'Orsay and the Elysée indicated an intention to keep it not only confidential but on a Heads of State basis and no more?
Is it not the case, furthermore, that the General agreed during the course of the conversation that the allies should be told if and when discussions started? If that is so, what did the Ambassador say? I see no reason why he should necessarily have commented at all, but did he or anyone else say to the French that the proposition was unacceptable, then or subsequently? It would be helpful to know. And is it really conceivable that the Quai d'Orsay and the Foreign Office who were called yesterday, in one newspaper, the two most experienced Foreign Offices in the world, could have got into such a muddle?
On any objective assessment of the facts I submit that a major breach of diplomatic confidence appears to have been committed, so much so that we have to seek for the motive in our inquiries here this afternoon. Was it the result simply of suspicion? Really, this was a most important initiative, there is no question of that, a most discreet and high-level one. Is it conceivable that having got reactions to this vital meeting between the Ambassador and the President and without probing further we should have condemned the whole thing on the basis of suspicion alone? I really doubt it.
Or, secondly, was it another attempt, as has been widely suggested—as the Foreign Secretary knows—to drive a wedge in Europe, to isolate the French; to have our will with France? I am not suggesting that this was necessarily a conscious decision of the Cabinet, but I am asking the Foreign Secretary was it not a fact that perhaps in the existing

circumstances it suddenly seemed to be a good idea for some reason or another?
I would, moreover, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there are not those in the Foreign Office or in high places who, particularly since the economic troubles and the riots in France last year, have seriously held the view that moves of this kind could pay off. It is perhaps arguable, but I was speaking earlier about objectives. Was this ever the objective? The evidence tends to point that it may have been. We in this House need to know.
If it ever was the objective, I suggest that the Government will be gravely disappointed, for our European allies in the Six are not fools, nor are they totally ignorant of history. They know there will be no meaningful cohesion in Europe until this country and France are on a basis of understanding again and they will regard this as a most disappointing and damaging gaffe; and whatever they may think of the merits or demerits of the General's ideas—which I am not discussing—I believe, nevertheless, that they will place the blame elsewhere.
Who can deny that a Europe of 12, 13 or 14 States is an entirely different entity from the Six as we know it today? Who does not think it a pity in some sense that the E.E.C. has, I would say, degenerated into no more than an introspective customs union. What has happened to the high ideals from which it started? From Messina it has descended to a shopkeepers' charter. Pigmeat, tariffs and minimum prices. That is the language of Europe. What happened to the song of Roland—sunk beneath a surplus of sugar beet? If the General, in his own way, from time to time indulges in his grand imaginative pictures, is it so much to be deplored and should we really resent and refuse even to discuss or contemplate his romantic visions, particularly situated as we are, excluded and outside? I doubt it myself.
This is no new story. It was old when Henry II carried off Eleanor of Acquitania. Down through history France and this country have often been divided and whenever we have been there has been no real peace in Europe. But we have both "the defaults of our qualities", to use a French phrase, and they are strangely complementary. When we are united we are as formidable a


nucleus as exists in the civilised world. To seek partnership with France should be a permanent aim of British policy, yet I doubt whether after these lamentable events any meaningful discussions will any more be possible between the French and the present British Government. That is a serious reflection in itself. It is even more serious in the light of what appear to have been the manner and conduct of the negotiations.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary can explain to the House of Commons how all this happened in rather more detail than he was able to do yesterday. I hope even more fervently that he will set about trying to do something to mend this tragic breach.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is a three-hour debate. It will finish at 6.43 p.m. So far, 20 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to speak. Reasonably brief speeches will help.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) said that he had no malice towards the Government, but a large part of his speech was dripping with malice. He even sunk so low as to suggest that the talks with President Nixon would be leaked by the British Government. He said that it was impossible to know the General's mind even when one was talking to him.

Mr. Hastings: My understanding of what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday is that if the precedent is followed then apparently the Government will find nothing inconsistent in doing what I said.

Mr. Gordon Walker: In the light of those comments I do not see any cause to alter a single word of what I said.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was impossible to know the General's mind even when talking to him, but seemed himself to be well-informed about the General's mind. I wonder where his detailed information came from. Certainly, it had a very pronounced French bias and it struck me, listening to him, that he had been pretty well briefed. He talked about evidence which none of us know about that led him to this and that conclusion. Where did such evidence come from? It was very apparent

to me that this was a statement of the French case which no one has yet heard as clearly as he put it.
I agree with the hon. Member on only one point, that we are dealing with a very serious situation. I believe that on the major merits of the issue the Government were clearly right in what they did, though I have, I must say. some doubts about some aspects of the handling of a very difficult situation.
The hon. Member said that he thought the General was making at attempt at a genuine dialogue, but it seemed to me that one thing he overlooked was that the General made an extremely awkward proposal to us at an extremely awkward moment. It may have been unintentional. He may be an obtuse diplomat who did not realise what he was doing, though I doubt it. He proposed that we should initiate talks behind the backs of our allies about the destruction of N.A.T.O. and E.E.C., and he made that proposal eight days before the Prime Minister was due to go to Bonn and three weeks before President Nixon was due in Europe.
That was really the whole and sole cause of the fundamental trouble we are facing, because if the Government had refused such talks they would have laid themselves open to a charge of rebuffing France, while if they had accepted the talks they would have been in an indefensible position; and the Foreign Secretary had to reckon that either way the French might well use leaks to other Governments to exploit the situation. We have certainly had unhappy experiences of this kind of rather ruthless diplomacy in the past and it strikes me that one factor affecting the General's irritation, is that, rightly or wrongly, we used first a device which he himself was preparing to use.
It seems to me that the basic issue is that the General put us in a position in which we had to take some action one way or the other and that all the alternatives facing the Foreign Secretary were extremely difficult. This is what really matters, not irrelevancies as to whether the proposals contain something old or new, or whether, as the hon. Member has suggested, the President was philosophising in the subjunctive tense. What really matters is that he sketched proposals precise enough for him to suggest


that we should initiate talks on the basis of those proposals to form the foundation of an agenda.
The Foreign Secretary had no choice. He was absolutely right to inform our allies in W.E.U. and N.A.T.O. of matters concerning them closely, but I must express one or two doubts. If the reports are true that Washington was told only very late indeed, this seems to me to have been wrong. This may well be untrue——

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I must explain that those reports are quite incorrect. Washington was informed on the same day, 12th February.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am gratified to hear that. I said that I had only read reports in the Press.
But the second point is more serious. The decision to tell Dr. Kiesinger before informing the French of our intention to do so was entirely mistaken. The timetable was extremely difficult, as, perhaps, General de Gaulle intended. After the Ambassador cleared his report with the French Foreign Office, that left only four days before the Prime Minister's visit to Bonn. There was time enough, but, in any case, my right hon. Friend yesterday did not rest his argument on the shortage of time. He said that we could not give France this information before telling Dr. Kiesinger, because we did not want to appear to be asking for permission to inform our allies.
But there was no question of asking permission. It was a question of giving notice of intention, as he did in the case of our other allies. We did not regard notice to France that we would inform the other allies as asking permission. Acting as we did, we gave France a debating point, which does not seem to me very important one way or another, but, much more important, we gave rise—I think quite wrongly—to the impression that we might be trying to drive a wedge between Germany and France.
I can understand, and I share, the feelings of frustration about the General, but frustration is not a good basis for foreign policy. It may condemn one to try to do things which cannot be done. One thing which cannot be done is to outflank

the French veto of our entry of the E.E.C. by trying to line up the other five members or create special relations with them. The reason is that, in the last resort, Germany will always side with France. The Federal Republic honestly believes that the E.E.C. is incomplete without the United Kingdom, but it knows that the E.E.C., without France, would be non-existent. When it is faced with that kind of choice, it has no doubt where it must go.
In consequence, in all preliminary moves of any policy which we are advocating, Germany will be on our side, but, when it comes to a showdown forced by France, it has no choice but to take the French side. It has always done this and it always will do this as long as France blocks our entry of the Common Market. We cannot blame Germany in any way: this is both a natural and worthy policy. It means that Germany does not want to be isolated and unattached in Europe and that it regards as the most important of its policy objectives the burying of Franco-German hostility for ever. But we should understand what German policy is and we should never pursue any policy based in any form on trying to drive a wedge between Germany and France. We will always lose and will always be outplayed in that respect.
The truth is that there is no dramatic action which we can take in relation to improving the prospects for our entry of the E.E.C. All that we can do, as we have been doing, is keep up constant pressure by Government statements and resolutions in all the European assemblies and conferences. We must not let the issue lie down, as it lay down last time and as the General would like to see it lie down again.
I deeply regret the worsening of relations with France. This is a very grave situation. I never thought that the day would come when our two Governments would be openly and publicly accusing one another of lying. The danger, it seems to me, of this, if this state of affairs continues, is that France might itself, even after the withdrawal of General de Gaulle from office, continue to block our entry of the Common Market. We must assume that there is strong French public and political feeling on this issue. If France continued,


after the departure of General de Gaulle, to block our entry, we might then have radically to reconsider our European policy.
I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire at least that the first essential is that we must try to restore reasonable relations with France. This will take time—it cannot be done quickly—but, in saying this, unlike the hon. Member, I do not in the slightest condone the actions in this issue of General de Gaulle. On the contrary, what he did was the basic and fundamental cause of these difficulties. The most that can be said against the Government is that they mishandled something, but what they mishandled was created by the General, and, as far as one can see, deliberately created by him.
Only time can obliterate these very bad relations. We should certainly start to repair fences as quickly as possible. It is, unfortunately, not possible in this debate to avoid altogether saying things which will worsen the situation, but, as far as possible, we should say as little as we can to worsen the situation. Directly the debate is over, I hope that we have a period of silence both in London and in Paris.

4.17 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I find it difficult to be here in the later stages of the debate, when the Foreign Secretary will intervene, for reasons which I hope that he appreciates, so, with the permission of the House, I will intervene briefly now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) have made it clear what the debate is about. It is not about the general relationship of the various countries in Europe—or at least only indirectly. It really concerns, and is a short debate about, a specific episode of diplomacy and foreign policy conducted and directed personally and primarily by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary with the President of France.
In his general approach to the problems of Europe's future, the right hon. Gentleman can rightly claim much support on both sides of the House and elsewhere, but, in this particular case, there are certain points which must be made, if

only for the sake of the conduct of British foreign policy in future.
The relevant facts which could be ascertained from the tangle of speculation after the Foreign Secretary's statement yesterday were these—that the President of France and the British Ambassador in Paris regarded the exchanges which they had as confidential to the two Governments, at any rate for the present. The second fact is that the Prime Minister disclosed the content of those talks to the German Chancellor without obtaining General de Gaulle's consent or that of the French Government. There is no dispute, therefore, about these facts of the case.
I do not want to labour this point, but it is essential to establish, and at once, that this is not the practice of British diplomacy, and for a very obvious reason—that, if foreign statesmen were to believe for a moment that confidences could and would be related to others, no one would ever say anything worth while to us again. So this must be said at once, and unequivocally, and I hope that it will go out from this House that this is not our practice: otherwise, our usefulness in the international councils of the world would be at an end.
The more one hears of this affair the more it is clear that the Foreign Secretary is pleading that this was a special situation in which special treatment was necessary. He says, first, that the substance of the matters discussed by General de Gaulle and the British Ambassador was so important to our friends that they had to be told of it; secondly, and I think that the House recognises that this is the feeling behind the right hon. Gentleman's mind, that the General is considered capable of setting a trap which would, unless one were careful, discredit Britain in the minds of the other five members of the Community, and that for those two reasons—maybe for others, too, but for those in particular—the Prime Minister's action in telling the German Chancellor without General de Gaulle's consent was justified.
In this, if I may say so with respect, I think that the Foreign Secretary has under estimated the resources of diplomacy, and because he underestimated them he did not use them. Our friends and allies in the European alliance and in the European Economic Community


are adult members of international society. They are as anxious as anyone, because they suffer acutely from the hostility that has developed between Britain and France, to see the deadlock between France and Britain ended.
At least two options were open to the right hon. Gentleman in conducting this affair. He could have told General de Gaulle that the British Government thought that they must inform the German Government—and they before other Governments—and invited the cooperation of the General either to explain his own ideas to his partners or agree that we should do so. If the General had said, "Yes"—which I must admit is extremely unlikely—at least the British Government would have been in the clear and given the all clear to go ahead. Had the General said "No", it would have been fairly certain that this was one of the General's long-term incursions into the future of Europe and of N.A.T.O.—something which has been heard often before—and that the initiative was of no real value and had no real future. That was one course which at any rate would have left everyone in the clear, and particularly the British Government.
But there was another course which I should have thought would have commended itself to the right hon. Gentleman. That course was to tell the five other members of the Community that the British Ambassador had had a first conversation with the French President; that the result seemed to be the old mixture as before but that there were certain things that we would like to pursue further in the interests of the unity of Europe in case there should be any substance in them; that we therefore intended to have further conversations to clarify these points that might be of substance, and that if at any time in these conversations matters of real substance arose which showed possibilities for negotiation we would seek the General's agreement—insist, indeed, that there must be agreement—to create the necessary allied machinery so that all the members of the Community and Britain could meet together to consider them. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister did not adopt one of those two courses. It would completely have safeguarded

the position of the British Government.
The impression is that the Government felt that they were about to fall into a trap. I think that they were afraid of this. But surely one of the functions of diplomacy is to spring traps in order to render them harmless, so that the innocent do not fall into them and even those who set them are not necessarily caught. Perhaps the sporting image of this analogy helps me, but this is one of the purposes of diplomacy. One must conclude on the evidence so far that the reaction of the British Government to this initiative of the President of France was too hasty and precipitate and, being precipitate, led them into real trouble.
I cannot quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leyton in his interpretation, because I do not think that the General—and some of us have had experience of this sort of conversation with him—was asking the British Government to break with N.A.T.O. What I think he was asking the British Government to do was to talk with him about the differences between France and Britain on the political economic and military future of Europe. If that was so, there was a very strong case for accepting the invitation, and I would say that our allies and friends in Europe and the other five members of the Community would also have felt that we would have been safe to undertake those talks.
I have one final reflection. Our joint purpose must now be to undo this damage, if that can be done. In a very special sense the W.E.U. is a trustee for the peace and unity of Europe—and in these two senses in particular: it is through the W.E.U. that German rearmament is controlled—and, in particular, German nuclear rearmament. It is through the Brussels Treaty, for example, and not through N.A.T.O., that France is brought automatically to the aid of Germany if Germany is attacked. So it is within the context of the W.E.U. that the peace and security of Europe in a peculiar way lies, and if W.E.U. were to break up we could not replace those ingredients which are vital to the peace, security and unity of Europe.
There is no doubt, and many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen feel this, that French policy during the last few years


has been divisive of Western Europe. One must in honesty say this. It has been exasperating to those who have pursued in a devoted way the unity of Europe. But, equally, we have to remember that there can be no unity in Europe without the rapprochement of France and Germany. If there is to be real unity in Europe Britain must come into the partnership not with one or the other, but with both. Unless that is recognised, we may do very serious damage to the whole conception of European unity and contribute to the division of Europe rather than to healing the differences.
I hope that this bitter experience of the last week or so will mean that the French—and in particular the French—will take a very hard and clear look at their policy in Europe and will realise now how dangerous are the symptoms of disunity which we have seen. I hope, too, that the British Government will take the lead in reconciliation.
I have not concealed from the right hon. Gentleman that I think that the resources of diplomacy have not been used and that they could have been used with far greater skill, but I hope that we will now take every possible step we can to reconcile these two points of view, keeping central to our mind all the time the thought that there is no unity in Europe, there maybe something less, if we deal with France, on the one hand, or with Germany, on the other: that there may be something less, but it will not be the unity of Europe, and it is to the unity of Europe that we all want to subscribe.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) has founded his criticism of the Government upon the disclosure by the Government of the contents of the discussion between the General and our Ambassador without having received the permission of the General. The right hon. Gentleman has taken as his thesis for that criticism two points; first, that the General, it is conceded, probably regarded the conversation as a confidential one; and, secondly, that permission was not first obtained before the disclosure took place.
If the matter rested there, no one in the House would disagree that it would be the normal diplomatic practice to obtain

permission before passing on information which was understood to be of a confidential nature. But the right hon. Gentleman failed to draw attention to one of the cardinal points of these remarkable negotiations, and that is, as my right hon. Friend told the House yesterday in his statement, that the General said to us that he would welcome talks between Britain and France and that he would like Her Majesty's Government to suggest that such talks should take place.
I do not know whether it would be suggested that that is a normal practice in diplomatic relations; that, having made certain proposals, the proposer should then say, "But I would like you to take the initiative in suggesting talks." I suggest to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman that the fact that that was said, and that it was an abnormal suggestion, put the British Government in a position in which they had to consider carefully whether the normal diplomatic processes should obtain. If the British Government were to initiate talks on the basis of the four points put forward by the General during the course of these discussions, nobody would suggest that such an initiative, which would clearly strongly affect our friends and allies in the Western European Union and which was likely to include proposals which might even take Benelux out of the inner European council from the point of view of decision-making, should be undertaken without prior consultation with our friends and allies.
I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we ought, in those circumstances, to have done. At least he did not suggest, and I am very glad that he did not, that we ought simply to have gone ahead with the discussions and made the request which the General suggested that we might make, without having first asked whether we might inform our friends and allies in the W.E.U. I hope that nobody in the House would suggest that we would have been right to invite the General, as he asked us to do, to embark upon those discussions without even mentioning the fact to our friends and allies of W.E.U.

Sir John Rodgers: Surely it was open to the Foreign Secretary, in acknowledging the despatch from our Ambassador, to express the view that we


would not look favourably on the disappearance of N.A.T.O. and the breaking-up of the Atlantic Alliance, and that we had reservations about other points with which the Foreign Secretary did not agree, and then to have said that, bearing in mind our objections, we still would be prepared to continue the confidential talks. Surely that course was open to the Foreign Secretary before he divulged the contents of the talks without the permission of the French Government?

Mr. Silkin: What I have said, and I think it will be agreed by the right hon. Gentleman, is that the one thing we would not have done is to invite the French to embark on these negotiations without first having informed our friends and allies, as they were likely to be materially affected by these discussions.

The question, therefore, is solely whether we ought to have said to the General that we were not prepared to embark upon these discussions unless he gave permission first for us to talk to our friends. I do not know whether it is suggested that we should have said, "If you do not give us permission we will not talk at all." The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting that at one point in his speech, but is that a realistic way of looking at it? The right hon. Gentleman thought that if that question had been put probably the General would have said "No, you cannot tell them. I do not want you to tell them."

If he had said that, what then? Is the whole matter to come to an end? Are these proposals which, as my right hon. Friend said in his reply to the French Government, are significant and far-reaching, to come to an end for that reason? What would happen if they did? What would be likely to be the result? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that if we had said that, nothing would have leaked and nothing would have come to the notice of our friends and allies in Europe?

Of course it would, and, of course, the worst possible construction would have been put upon it. We would have been told that we had ignored an excellent opportunity for entering into discussions with France at the very time when our relations with France demanded that such an opportunity should be taken. We would thus have been put in a serious

and difficult dilemma, a dilemma which we might not have been in but for the form in which the offer was put to us by the French General. Had he not suggested, for reasons best known to himself and which have not been explained—and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a possible explanation of the reasons—that we should initiate the conversation, then the situation would have been much easier to deal with.

It is right that the House should bear in mind in this context that, whatever the criticism the right hon. Gentleman is making about our disclosure to our friends and allies, so far as I have been able to discover that criticism was not made by the French themselves until only yesterday. From 12th till 24th February, nearly a fortnight, during which they knew, because we told them, that we were discussing and had discussed these matters, not a word of criticism came from the French Government. It was only after the leak by Figaro that this point was picked up by the French Government and they made their protest.

It is interesting to observe that The Guardian, in its report from Paris this morning, speaking of what is now coming out from French sources, said that the General is supposed to have said that it was Mr. Soames who suggested secret Franco-British conversations. The report continues:
General de Gaulle observed that he would have nothing to say on this matter until the British Government presented concrete proposals, but if that were done the other European capitals must be informed.
That is what is coming out from France now as an explanation of their attitude and as a condemnation of what has been reported to the British Government as being the substance of the conversation. If they are saying that the General's attitude would have been that European capitals must be informed before concrete proposals were put before them, how can the British Government be criticised by right hon. and hon. Members opposite for doing that very thing?

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Surely the question at issue is not whether the French have behaved with duplicity, of which they are capable, but that the charge against the Government is that, the French having behaved with possible duplicity, the Government have


reacted, at best, with incompetence and, at worst, with some duplicity of their own?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands what I have been saying. I have not accused anybody of behaving in this matter with duplicity. Indeed, I am prepared to assume that there was no question of a trap and that the General fully intended to open negotiations.
What I say is that the General did it in an abnormal and peculiar way, and that I can understand why he may have adopted that course. It may have been to save his own face with the French public, or some reason of that kind. None the less, he did so. Faced with the way in which the General had conducted these negotiations, the British Government were put in a very difficult diplomatic position and their decision, in those circumstances, to inform their allies before initiating conversations, as requested by the General was perfectly proper. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that that is a reasonable way of looking at the situation.
I entirely agree, now that this incident has taken place, that it is of paramount importance that everything possible should be done to repair the damage, no matter from where the damage was sparked off.
I should like to refer to what the President of the Assembly of the Western European Union said on Thursday, 20th February, when opening the second part of the Fourteenth Session. I do so with more consciousness of its importance, because later that day the Assembly, by an overwhelming majority, despite the abstention of some British Conservative members—and I regret that the Conservative delegation was split on this issue—accepted the British initiative in trying to get talks in W.E.U. on matters of common importance and calling upon the French to respond to that initiative.
The President said that
… the bitterness of the protests and differences sparked off by this incident"—
he was referring to the meeting in London of the Western European Union Council—
is due only to the degree of mistrust which prevails among our Governments.

Because of our concern over this crisis, we address an appeal to France. Recalling the decisive role it has played in the European cause, we ask it not to pursue the expression of its discontent to the point of endangering the building of Europe. …
It is therefore our wish that no time be lost in starting a direct, frank and detailed discussion between two partners who, at the present juncture, are only too inclined to consider each other as opponents, whereas everything should draw them together.
We consider that the need for this reconciliation is the greater since good understanding between all members of the Council is essential to the operation of this body.
Those words could be applied in toto to the present situation. It is not only to the functioning of the Western European Union and, indeed, all the existing European organisations, all of which I believe we should use for this purpose, that this reconciliation is essential. It is essential to the whole progress of European unity.
I should like to draw the attention of the House and of my right hon. Friend, in particular, to one last point. Whatever we may think about some aspects of the General's proposals—and some of them are clearly not possible in the short term, however desirable they may be in the long term—it is abundantly clear that they are founded upon a fundamental concept with which we entirely agree, namely, that we and France and the nations of Europe as a whole should be working to the time when an independent, strong Europe is able to stand upon its own feet.
I believe that in that sense we should respond to the General's initiative. I hope that these unfortunate diplomatic events will not stand in the way of the Government pursuing that initiative as far as it can be pursued in present times.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: Like the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), I feel that it is important that those taking part in this debate should say nothing which will make it more difficult to heal the unhappy rift with France. Nevertheless, we must examine the situation which has developed.
First, I think that we must try to form an opinion about the significance of what the President of France said to the British Ambassador. It seems to be


agreed that the President outlined his thoughts about the future of N.A.T.O. and Europe. There is no doubt that General de Gaulle had said most of this before. Though we have not yet got any very precise information, it seems that in certain respects his remarks went further and were more precise than his earlier public statements. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary replies he will be able to give us more information on this point, because we have been left rather in the dark.
It is also agreed—and this is important—that General de Gaulle did not put forward any formal proposals for talks with the British Government. He seems to have confined himself to saying that if the British Government were interested in his ideas, and wished to discuss them with the French Government, this would be very welcome in Paris. Thus, he clearly put the ball into the British Government's court and left them to decide whether or not to ask for talks.
This was hardly a warm or pressing invitation. Nevertheless, in view of the prolonged deadlock between the two countries over European affairs, it is understandable that the British Government should wish to respond to any invitation, however vague and indirect, to talk things over with the French Government. It is to the credit of our Ambassador that he secured this slight move in the right direction.
Even if the propositions put forward by General de Gaulle appeared unacceptable, there was obvious advantage in seizing any opportunity which offered itself to reopen a dialogue. On the other hand, there was an obvious danger that the opening of secret talks, as they would have been called, between London and Paris would raise suspicions in other European capitals. This was undoubtedly a difficult and delicate situation. But the British Government could certainly have handled it more cleverly.
It has been suggested that the President was not seriously interested in having talks with the British Government and that his reference to this possibility was merely a polite way of ending the conversation with the British Ambassador. That is clearly not the impression gained by the Ambassador.
It is unfortunate that important talks of this kind should take place with only two people present, one of whom is rather sphinx-like and usually never expresses his opinion except through third parties. That is one of the difficulties in checking the accuracy of the reports and counter-reports which are being issued.
Assuming that General de Gaulle genuinely wanted talks with Britain, it is a little hard to believe that he seriously hoped to persuade the British Government to come round to his point of view on N.A.T.O. and on European union which would undoubtedly involve a complete reversal of our policy.
Alternatively, it has been suggested by less charitable commentators that the President's purpose was deliberately to compromise Britain's relations with the other members of the European community by giving the impression that we were negotiating with France behind their backs. I do not claim to know what was in the General's mind, but I entirely reject the imputation of bad faith. Whatever one may think of his policies he is, if nothing else, a man of honour.
But, of course, all this has now been submerged in the row over the diplomatic propriety or otherwise of telling other Governments what the President said in a confidential talk with the British Ambassador. There is no doubt in my mind—and I say this with regret—that the Foreign Secretary slipped up most seriously. It is always easy to be wise after the event. But it is quite clear that, immediately on receipt of the Ambassador's report, a written communication should have been sent by the British Government to the French Government in order to get something on the record.
That would have served three purposes. First, to restate the Ambassador's understanding of the ideas put forward by the President and to ask for formal confirmation of them. Secondly, to make it clear that, while the British Government would be happy to have talks with the French Government, they must point out that their views on N.A.T.O. and the Common Market had not changed. Thirdly, to inform the French Government that, since the issues raised were ones which were of general concern, they felt it their duty to inform other allied Governments.
There could, of course, be no question of the Prime Minister going to Bonn without saying anything about this to the German Chancellor who would, when he heard about it later, inevitably have felt that the British Government had been less than frank with him. But there was plenty of time between the Ambassador's meeting with President de Gaulle and the visit of the Prime Minister to Bonn. It is a mystery why there was no communication by the British to the French Government during that period. The French Government cannot, therefore, reasonably reproach the Prime Minister for informing Dr. Kiesinger of what had taken place in Paris. But they undoubtedly can claim that the British Government had a duty to tell them of their intention in advance.
If the Foreign Secretary had written to the French Government, as I have suggested, they might have reacted in one of two ways.
Either they might have asserted, as they are now doing, that the President's remarks contained virtually nothing new and that, therefore, no undue significance should be attached to the meeting. In that case we would have heard nothing more about this whole affair. Alternatively, they might have confirmed the Ambassador's account of what the President had said, possibly with some modifications, which would have established what had been said. At present, we are without any officially agreed record.
However, there is no doubt that whether the French Government had been warned in advance or, as it happened, had been told afterwards, they would have objected strongly to the decision of the British Government to tell other Governments about what the President had said. But Britain—and here I must agree with the Government—was bound to keep her allies informed. Therefore, even if diplomatic conventions had been properly observed—and they could hardly have been worse observed—there is no reason to believe that an explosion in Paris would have been avoided.
This unhappy affair has inevitably become linked with the disagreement between France and the six other members of Western European Union. The British Government and the Governments of our five partners are in my opinion rightly trying, within the framework of

W.E.U. to establish the practice of regular consultation on international affairs and in this way to bring Britain into closer relationship with the other nations of Western Europe.
After General de Gaulle's first veto on Britain's entry into the Common Market in 1963, the then British Government endeavoured to develop contacts with the other five through W.E.U. Largely owing to French pressure in Bonn, this came to nothing. After the second veto, the present British Government reverted to the same idea. For a while some of the other Governments concerned were hesitant. But their impatience has gradually been mounting. This was made clear at the Parliamentary Congress at The Hague last November. There, one Foreign Minister after another emphasised that, while nobody wished to isolate France, it was not tolerable that one country which wished to stand still, should hold back six others which wished to go forward.
The then Italian Foreign Minister was particularly insistent on this; and it was his successor Signor Nenni who, the other day, put forward the plan which was adopted by six out of the seven W.E.U. Governments at the recent meeting in Luxembourg. As has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich, the Parliamentary Assembly of W.E.U. in Paris last week, with the exception of the Gaullist members, expressed its wholehearted approval of the Luxembourg decision.
As we know, General de Gaulle is again putting pressure on Chancellor Kiesinger, in an effort to persuade him to withdraw from these consultations. We cannot say what the outcome will be. But we can at least assure Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the other five countries of our firm support for the efforts that they are making to promote by every means possible the unity of Europe and the strength of N.A.T.O.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: No one can doubt that this is an unhappy occasion, and I think that everyone will welcome the measured tones in which those who have contributed to the debate so far have spoken. No one will seek to pour oil on the


flames, and everyone will hope that at the end of the debate it will be possible to resume the old Anglo-French friendship which has been the cornerstone of civilised European co-operation in the 20th century.
It is true that this friendship has from time to time been submitted to various strains, but I think it is true to say that since the old imperial tensions between the two countries they have been able to work together with sympathy and with understanding. I hope that the current row, which has a somewhat old-fashioned air which recalls Fashoda rather than the post-war reconstruction period when Frenchmen helped to build the new Europe, will soon be past, and that we will resume the kind of cooperation which has marked Anglo-French relations in the past 23 years.
What is the origin of the present dispute? It is important to be frank on this. I believe that it is basically General de Gaulle's resentment at Britain's insistence on participating in Europe. Two hundred years have passed since Napoleon's birth, but President de Gaulle still insists on maintaining the Emperor's dictum that Britain is the enemy of Europe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has very properly affirmed that we not only have the right to participate in Europe's affairs but that we intend to exercise it.
The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) has properly pointed out that this is not a single crisis but a double crisis which has been going on at different levels. The first crisis, the one which was overt and which those of us who are members of the Assembly of the W.E.U. observed last week, was the dispute about Britain's right to use Western European Union as forum for political consultations, and to develop it as a centre where matters of political concern to Europe could be discussed and a European voice could be concerted.
After the Foreign Secretary had convened the London meeting of the W.E.U. Council, his proposal was promptly attacked by the French, ostensibly on juridical grounds but basically, I believe, on political grounds. The juridical grounds were that under the Statute of the Council, particularly Clause 8, paragraph

2, which provides for a continuing discussion within the Council of European affairs in matters affecting W.E.U., it was not constitutionally possible for an extraordinary meeting to be held.
Then there was the insistence that if it was not possible to hold the meeting under Clause 8, paragraph 2, it was possible under the emergency rôle attributed to the Council through Clause 8, paragraph 3. When that argument was put forward, it was again urged that Britain had acted ultra vires in seeking to convene the Council. Indeed, M. Krieg, the Gaullist Deputy who represented France at the Assembly of W.E.U., maintained that it was illegal for Britain to convene the Council under Clause 8, paragraph 3, because at the Luxembourg meeting the question of the Middle East, which had been the occasion for the London meeting, had been discussed. Then he added that it had been discussed for three-quarters of an hour. It was obvious then that the French concern was at any price to prevent W.E.U. becoming a forum for the discussion of political questions, and being an alternative centre where these matters could be discussed.
The real fear of President de Gaulle was that Britain was attempting to take an initiative in what he regarded as his Europe, from which his veto had already successfully excluded Britain. The attempt to prevent the meeting of W.E.U. in London was an attempt to exercise an arbitrary, and I believe inadmissible, veto on Britain's participation in Europe. That is the heart of the two crises which have blown up. I hope that not even those who are sympathetic to the idea of N.A.F.T.A. and signed the Motion on the Order Paper will deny to Britain the right to take part in Europe's affairs.
It is significant in connection with the suggestion that Britain had leaked some secret to her partners that although the British Ambassador made it clear to M. Hervé Alphand, the Secretary-General of the Quai d'Orsay, on 12th February, that Britain did not accept General de Gaulle's proposals, it was not until 20th February that the first public leak appeared in Figaro. This leak was declared by Figaro to have been picked up in the corridors of W.E.U. But it was notorious that the information had been leaked by the Quai d'Orsay, implying that the


Foreign Office had engaged in some kind of skullduggery.
It was very curious that although the meeting between Mr. Soames and M. Debré, when Mr. Soames sought confirmation of the minute which had already been cleared by M. Tricot, the Secretary-General of the Elysée, took place on 8th February, it was not until 20th February that this report was leaked by the Quai d'Orsay to the Press.
The reason was that by 20th February there was a motion before the Assembly of W.E.U. which clearly commanded general support among the Five and Britain, although the Gaullists opposed it. It was clear by 20th February that there would be a majority in the Assembly of W.E.U. in favour of the motion which congratulated those who had convened the London meeting, invited France to return to the W.E.U. Council, and suggested that the Council was a proper focus for the discussion of Europe's political affairs.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman has twice said that the Quai d'Orsay was responsible for leaking the information which appeared in Figaro. How can he substantiate that? My understanding is that in Paris the belief is that Figaro obtained this information in Bonn.

Mr. Edelman: I can only say that according to my information the detailed publication in Figaro was of a kind which could have come only from French sources.
I want briefly to turn to the question of the British Ambassador's conversation with President de Gaulle. Nobody can doubt the honour or the capacity of our Ambassador, who is dedicated to the cause of Anglo-French co-operation. But there are many who are familiar with President de Gaulle's style of exposition—the cloudy utterances, the sibylline proclamations, the ambivalent emphasis, all ending with the cry, "Vous m'avez compris?" All that is enough to confuse the most experienced. No one could blame the Ambassador for seeking further elucidation, which is exactly what he did. He went immediately to see M. Tricot to present to him the minute he had noted immediately after the conversation and to ask for it to be confirmed.
If this was not enough, he went on 8th February to see M. Debré to obtain further confirmation of the minute. Although French sources allege that M. Debré tried to elucidate, explain and remove confusions from the Ambassador's mind, it is certain that there was no formal objection to the minute which Mr. Soames presented to the French Foreign Secretary. I am firmly convinced that Mr. Soames made an accurate report to Her Majesty's Government.
I will conclude by stating my view that it is time to end this unhappy quarrel, from which only the enemies of France and Britain can benefit. At the same time, I do not believe that we should retreat from our position that W.E.U. is a proper place to discuss a whole variety of matters which are not covered by the Treaty of Rome. We should persevere in the attitude we have taken up following the plan put forward by M. Harmel of insisting that we have the right to be in Europe and to concert with our friends in Europe on all matters which affect us all, which we can legitimately discuss and which are not covered by existing treaties.
I hope that the Prime Minister—remembering that it is only possible for our differences to be composed at the highest level—together with the Foreign Secretary, will take the opportunity of personally renewing contact with General de Gaulle. I hope that, supported by our admirable Ambassador, they will continue their work for European unity and Franco-British friendship which has been so unhappily interrupted.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: The speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) has widened the debate to cover the whole general picture of W.E.U. and our relations with France. I believe that the issue before us is a narrow one. It was touched on by the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker), who said that the Prime Minister had, on the whole, made a mistake. In failing to warn the President of France that he intended to use the confidential conversation with the British Ambassador, I believe that the Prime Minister, in making that confidential information available not only to the German Chancellor but


to the Heads of other Governments, made an error which no other Prime Minister in my political experience would have committed. It is inconceivable that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Mr. Baldwin, Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Anthony Eden or Mr. Attlee would have acted as the Prime Minister did on that occasion.
I find the excuse which the Foreign Secretary made yesterday in defence of the Prime Minister inexplicable, particularly when he described this as a difficult matter. He said that the issue had to be got across and that, therefore, some people heard about it after the French Government had been informed while others had been told before. Dr. Kiesinger was informed, it is clear, well before.
Will the Foreign Secretary tell us more about the history of the luncheon party between the British Ambassador and the President of France? It is widely reported that when the British Ambassador took up his appointment he was asked by Her Majesty's Government to get on personal terms with the President and find out his views on the future of Europe. Is that report true or false?
If it is true, and if the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary felt so strongly about the need to inform our allies, then surely that was the moment when the information should have passed to our allies in W.E.U., E.F.T.A. and N.A.T.O. But that was not done. As that warning had not been given to our allies and as those confidential exchanges were not revealed, I suggest that in this case—I speak from experience of having spent a short time at the Foreign Office—we should have sought the consent of the other party and not merely given a warning that we intended to use the information that had been received. I hope that this point will be cleared up by the Foreign Secretary.
I may differ from some about our posture in Europe, but I share the views of the hon. Member for Coventry, North about the essential need for Britain to be as close as possible to France. It is regrettable that after eight years of trying to enter the E.E.C. there is such an apparent lack of trust between Britain and France—between Britain's Prime Minister and the Head of State of France.

We should, therefore, use this opportunity to try to put this right.
The right way to proceed now is for the Prime Minister, who has not just made a mistake "on the whole" but has made a very grave diplomatic blunder, to apologise to the President of France—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and then say that we would like the talks to proceed; and when the talks have concluded we may then inform our allies in N.A.T.O., E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. about them. That would be the right and honourable course to take. I hope that it will be taken.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) began his speech by saying that he did not intend to deal with the sub-Stance of the conversation between our Ambassador and the President of France. I suggest that it is impossible to do justice to the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister—this must be said in view of what was said by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) about the Prime Minister—if one leaves out of consideration the Prince of Denmark and discusses only the minor scenes and small exchanges in diplomatic currency.
The supporters of our application to join the Common Market are in a difficult position today. It is, therefore, difficult for us to debate this matter without at the same time considering the whole substance of the argument, for the real reason why Her Majesty's Government have found themselves in this difficult position is because of the constant pressure that is exercised, in and out of season, by hon. Members who support our application to join the E.E.C. Many, not least on the benches opposite, have been urging my right hon. Friends to try to get Britain in, if not through the front door, then through some side door. We see this pressure being applied virtually every Tuesday and Thursday. Today, however, those very hon. Members who have applied this pressure set themselves up as judges on the mistakes which they allege the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have made. Thus, without discussing the background to the issue, no assessment of the Government's attitude in this matter is possible.
What is the real situation? The House was divided when the original application


to join was made. Bearing in mind the views of the President of the French Republic about the future of the Common Market expressed at that time, British historians will probably record that it was a lucky event that hon. Members did not troop into the Lobby on the six-line Whip and that at least some of us used our judgment to record a dissenting vote.
History will show that there was a considerable amount of argument about the matter at the time. I have always regretted the fact that the six-line Whip tried to make it appear as though there was unanimity in Parliament and throughout the country about our application to join. This was completely untrue. It is important to realise that this concentration on the diplomatic niceties of the situation masks a lack of candour on the part of those who are largely responsible for having exercised that pressure on Her Majesty's Government.
The fact is that the Government had decided to use all sorts of means, of which I and other hon. Members disapprove, to try to get into the Common Market against the opposition of the French Government, which I believe to be a wholly impossible task. However, given that that is the desire of so many right hon. and hon. Members, in the concrete position in which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary found himself I do not believe that he could have acted in any other way. I do not take kindly to the suggestion which was implied in the, as always, very measured speech of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) that somehow or other there could have been some rather more intelligent reaction which was completely overlooked by my right hon. Friend. A careful reading of yesterday's exchanges does not justify that implication.
The main anxiety amongst all the Ministers involved in this arose because they had decided some time ago to try to push their way into the Common Market by allying themselves more closely with some of the members of the Common Market Community other than France. This was the first mistaken decision, and everything else has flown from that. Unless we understand and accept that, we cannot make a proper assessment of the extreme difficulties facing my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he

received this report from our Ambassador in Paris.
This was the fatally false decision which we should revoke. It should be an accepted dogma in all these discussions that it cannot be possible to push our way into a Community which is led by France if the French Government and France are opposed to us. This is the kind of admission that we should have from the Government as a result of and as a lesson of this crisis. Such an admission would be far more important than a detailed investigation as to whether the Ambassador should have gone to the Secretary at the Ouai d'Orsay or to the Director-General of the Elysée or to some other French official. All that is of no importance and will be of no significance when the history of this incident is written.
I turn to another point where I think it was also imperative for the Government to reject the President's proposals immediately. Included in what the President said to our Ambassador is the proposal for a West European directorate for foreign policy and for defence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am open to correction on that. Although the terms were not used, and although my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was most punctilious yesterday afternoon to point out in reply to a supplementary question that that term had not been used, in order to be fair to the President of France, I none the less want to quote a representative French opinion which I think will carry at least as much weight as perhaps the opinion of those who contradicted me just now.
I quote from the leading article on this matter in yesterday's issue of Le Monde. Referring to the idea of the directorate, the paper says:
And then there is the project of the Directorate.
I point out that Le Monde uses the word "directorate" deliberately. It continues:
And this has in the past already provoked a great deal of feeling. It is said that this time the term 'directorate' was not actually employed, but having said that, one must admit that it is in the style of the President of the French Republic.
President de Gaulle has been talking about such a directorate on past occasions, and this establishes the truth of the contention that we established yesterday


afternoon, that he was thinking in terms of a four-Power directorate. I can understand the sympathy of a few hon. Members opposite for this point of view, because some of them have always believed that we should establish a new nuclear alliance with France and perhaps extend it later on to one or two other Western European countries such as Italy and Western Germany.
The fact is that there are only very few pro-de Gaullists in this Assembly and that the Government and the majority of hon. Members have always opposed the setting-up of a third nuclear command and have regarded it as a highly dangerous proceeding. However, that is what is behind this view.
I call in aid a publicly-expressed statement by Herr Strauss, who is perhaps the most senior member of the West German Cabinet. He, too, is aiming at a directorate of three or four Western European Powers. He has said publicly that his main purpose is that Germany could be fully associated as one of those controlling and deciding the strategic use of nuclear arms. That is his aim and purpose. The British Government has always opposed this. They are right to maintain the firmest possible opposition towards any move in that direction.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are those who want to see a supranational nuclear deterrent in Europe. I am one of them. Why does the hon. Gentleman say that it is a de Gaullist point of view? It is not. The de Gaullists fundamentally reject any supranational command of that kind.

Mr. Mendelson: I hear opinions advanced by the French Government that they do not want a supranational political authority, but a Europe of the nations. This proposal means, if only Western Germany, Italy, France and Britain are in a directorate designed, as the General said, first for the discussion of foreign policy, that very little progress would be made on deciding on a joint foreign policy without having to decide on a joint nuclear policy as well. I think that I carry many hon. Members with me on this, because the one cannot be divorced from the other. I therefore commend and support the Government, as will many

other hon. Members, for their firm rejection of this idea, although I understand that some hon. Members have much sympathy for it.
My next point concerns our anxiety to be in such close and friendly touch with the Federal Republic of Germany even though it may endanger our relations with France This is one of the most dangerous ideas that the Government could pursue. I warn the Government that there can be no substitution here. It is not a tenable argument that we are doing this to induce the Chancellor of the Federal Government or the Foreign Secretary in the Federal Government of Germany to do more to make discussions about entry into the Common Market easier for us At the end of the day this operation will never succeed, because there are many conditions that the West German Government will attach to their moving a little.
For instance, I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was in these discussions, went much too far in his declaration about the holding of the West German Presidential elections in West Berlin. That was an occasion to utter words of caution. I was particularly alarmed at the langauge my right hon. Friend used, because my information is that last November—I am open to correction; I say this in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—the Government of the United Kingdom had warned the Federal Government of West Germany not to be too hasty in making their decision to hold the elections in West Berlin. Something must have happened since then. I say that it was the overanxious desire of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to get the Federal Chancellor on his side in his attempt to push us into the Common Market against fresh opposition that made him use what I think was exaggerated language in this dangerous situation. I hope and trust that the Government are now associated with other Governments in trying to ensure that this crisis is not pushed too far. There are good reasons for thinking that this is so.
The lessons to be drawn from this event are not niggling, small criticisms of the day-to-day conduct of our diplomatic affairs by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who I think is well up


to the problems which face him every week and every day. The lesson to be learned is the condemnation of a policy which forces any British Government, as long as it is pursued, to try to use all sorts of means that will not be successful against the desire of the French Government and against the hesitation of the West German Government to enter a Community in whose future it is doubtful whether some of its permanent members at present see so much value.
I say this next piece with caution, because I know that my right hon. Friend accepts for the future the idea of an overall European security system. Whilst he is anxiously engaged 24 hours a day in trying to push us into the Economic Community he has not either the time or the opportunity to do all that we should be doing in making proposals to the Soviet Union, to the Eastern European countries and to the Scandinavian countries, for the calling of an all-European security conference, and for the setting up of a European security system. It is not enough to say in reply that one cannot see an immediate prospect of that. If we do not start now, the same answer can be given in 12 months or in two years. Our answer should be that, while we maintain our present position in our alliance, as the Warsaw Pact countries do in theirs, the only real answer to Britain's and Europe's security problem is to replace these pacts and establish a European security conference which will guarantee the peace of Europe and the world.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) in his tour d'horison in which bombs were dropped all along the front but sometimes far from the precise subject of this debate.
I hope that I shall have the support of the Foreign Secretary on one point at least. That is, the need to diminish the pursuit of diplomacy by leaks, which has been far too prevalent in Europe over the last few months. No one has suffered more than this Government from the calculated leaks from Bonn at the time of the mark crisis. If that is anathematic to the right hon. Gentleman, we are in agreement.
Hon. Members have all said that they hope that this matter can be forgotten

and that all will be well. I must take a more serious view of the errors perpetrated in the last few days. It is difficult to think of the Foreign Secretary in the same category as Bismarck but I assure him that in France today the action of his Department is regarded as being as disastrous for relations abroad as the Ems Telegram. Bismarck's telegram was, of course, a forgery and designed to lead to war. The right hon. Gentleman's objects in his telegrams still remain obscure, and perhaps they will be cleared up today.
This action of the British Government has undoubtedly caused an abiding upset in Anglo-French relations for a long time to come. It is enough to quote from the Gaullist papers today to show that any talk of further tasks will not in any circumstances, while certain people remain in power and pursue the same policies of the last few days, ever be pursued.
It is clear from what has been published in Le Monde and other papers and from the interpretation put on it by those right hon. and hon. Members who have the privilege of knowing the General that this was a proposal for "talks about talks", to use a British phrase. When we had talks about talks with Mr. Smith—doubtless, in the view of some Government supporters, Mr. Smith and the General are equally antipathetic—did we think it necessary to consult all our Commonwealth partners on exactly what we were doing? Despite the hon. Member for Penistone's claim that these were precise and detailed talks, it is clear from what has been published that they were general propositions on the future of Europe which have been damaged in their handling.
The second point which the right hon. Gentleman must answer is why between 4th and 12th February no effort was made to inform the French Government of the Prime Minister's proposal to reveal these facts to the Government in Bonn. What is far more alarming than the detail of these matters is the growth of a British foreign policy which is totally unrealistic and which is made manifest and symptomatic by the sort of treatment which we have accorded our French allies. It is not just a farce, although a great deal of it is farce—I feel sorry for our British Ambassador—but it is symptomatic or something which is far more


serious—first, of a policy which believes that it is possible to get into Europe by isolating France. This is possibly the most serious thing which has emerged.
It is a ridiculous policy, as the simplest schoolboy must know, and pursuing it à l'outrance, as it has been pursued by the present Government, must lead to disaster for Europe and ourselves. There is an attitude in certain sections of the Foreign Office which is positively paranoid. We need not a Select Committee of Members of Parliament to investigate this but a Select Committee of psychiatrists.
The policy of trying to drive a wedge between France and the Six is the height of folly. To try to make the W.E.U. an instrument—remembering that it is a very delicate and important instrument in the safeguarding of nuclear armaments on the Continent and for the defence of Europe—for trying to do down the French is the policy of a lunatic, and that is the policy which right hon. Gentlemen seem to be pursuing. The same applies to their efforts to try to turn the E.E.C. against the French.
This is the distressing symptom behind these events. Europe can exist only with France and with the strengthening of the German-French alliance. It is with France that we must talk and make friends. But one thing which I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to look again at this Francophobia which exists in his Department and purge his Department of it. That is the most serious contribution which he could make, to get rid of those paper knights in the Treasury and the Foreign Office who, having been defeated in Brussels, dream idly of another Waterloo.
They have thrown away a great chance to talk to France and the General, perhaps the only remarkable and historical figure in Europe today, about where the future of Europe lies, to talk in general terms, to look forward, to hold these discussions which could have been revealed later, when they became technical, to our allies. This has been thrown away by the Francophobia which dominates the Foreign Office.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig: I begin by challenging the bona fides of hon.

Members opposite on this matter. I doubt their sincerity in launching this debate. For some months, many of us—some of us on this side of the House and some outside—have suggested that, at a technical level, the Government's method of approach to getting into Europe was wrong. No voices were raised about this from the Benches opposite and no interest was taken in the problem by them until now.
I start from the point that our desire is to enter the European communities, and fundamentally for political reasons. This implies that we have chosen our role in world affairs as being within Europe. The reasons for the French veto were fundamentally the same in 1967 as in 1963—their attitude towards the so-called "Atlantic question". In 1963, this was manifested in the defence issue; in 1967, 1968 and 1969 it is manifested much more in the issue of international finance.
However, there is what might be called the Gaullist schizophrenia. They are against Britain in so far as she is a rival to France for the leadership of Western Europe but know that, without her, the dream of a Europe independent of and equal to the United States is not to be realised. This gives us a potential trump card in our negotiations with Europe but it is one which we have so far failed to use.
Our riposte in 1968, as in 1963, has been to concentrate on Western European Union, which has thus again been suddenly pulled out of the obscurity in which it normally languishes. Our policy has been one of trying to bludgeon our way into the Community through associating with the Five, or alternatively establishing with them some other foci for cooperation in Europe. Either way, this might have been possible if the five had been genuinely united, but they were no more united than the Six and the most important country amongst them was lukewarm on the whole matter. Whenever there is a choice for Germany between her alignment with France and doing something to help Britain, she will always choose the Franco-German rapprochement and alliance first. Since the second French veto, therefore, we have had no chance of making any progress by concentrating on the other five.
I want to pose the alternative which some of us have been advocating consistently in recent months—whether there is not a chance of doing some kind of deal with France, or at any rate preparing the ground. Would the five have objected if we had tried this? This question has not been gone into sufficiently thoroughly. It was taken for granted that the other five would object. I submit that this was not so. People I have spoken to in Italy, the Netherlands and elsewhere have felt that the only way for Britain to get into Europe was by talking to France.
I move now to the question of the initiative taken by your Ambassador in Paris. I first put forward the hypothesis that I think that he genuinely and sincerely wanted to improve British relations with France and therefore he proceeded along the kind of lines I have indicated. I invite my right hon. Friend to deny that when the Ambassador handed back his memorandum of the meeting, the Foreign Office was appalled. It was a poisoned chalice for it. It thought of all the implications and did not know what to do.
Perhaps there was a Gaullist trap. If there was, could we not have avoided it by the simple expedient some time ago of asking the other five, "Supposing France suggests bilateral talks. Do you agree in principle that we should go in for them?" Let us remember that for many months there have been hints that this was what the French were about to suggest; in that respect the President's suggestions did not break new ground. We should have been prepared.
I come now to the question of the Press statement. I am not certain that this was handled in the wisest possible way. We could well now try to de-escalate the Press war that is going on. What has happened has hindered our efforts, both in our relations with France and in our relations with other members of the E.E.C. There is also E.F.T.A. to be considered, because some at least of the suggestions attributed to President de Gaulle would not be anathema to some members of that organisation, be it the winding up of N.A.T.O. or the transformation of the E.E.C. into a wider European free trade zone. I do not think that I personally am prepared to accept these ideas but they should at least be looked at.
Should we talk to France? Can we? The French have a fundamentally different approach to problems of international relations from ours. They tend to talk about concepts—often grandiloquently, it is true. We tend to be more pragmatic, building up from details to concepts. I think that, very often, we never arrive at concepts at all in the end. When, however, President de Gaulle throws out ideas like winding up N.A.T.O., ending the E.E.C. and having a free trade zone in Europe, I do not think that he is intending in any way to be tied down to detail but is thinking in broad concepts.
My fear is that, because the British Government and Foreign Office think in different terms, we have nothing to place before President de Gaulle in dealing with his concepts. Why not talk to France about a free trade zone, about the reform of N.A.T.O.? These things need not necessarily be against our interests. Between Britain and France surely there is a very great community of interest indeed. It is no coincidence that, in the two great wars of this century, they have fought on the same side. When one sees the rising economic and political power of West Germany, one has to consider what is to be the counterweight in Western Europe, and the only counterweight that I can see is that of Britain and France together. I am certain that, if Britain does not ultimately get into the E.E.C., that community will be dominated by Western Germany and this, I think, involves some implications which none of us would very much like, particularly some of my hon. Friends who are most adverse to Britain going in. I put that with the greatest respect to all of them.
There is surely only one way in which Britain will get into the E.E.C.—that is, if somehow we can approach the chief obstacle and say, "Is there any way in which we can do this?" The only way in which we can begin to do it is by talking. It may well be that, on 4lh February, President de Gaulle sprang a trap and that, to some extent, he has been thwarted. But, in avoiding superficial aspects of the trap, in not talking to the French behind someone else's back, have we not fallen into a worse trap—that is, a trap in which we are no longer


even on talking terms with the one country, and the only country, which could make possible our entry into Europe?
We have escalated this war now as far as we can—and war is virtually what it has become, even if only a war of words, in the last few days. My right hon. Friend's statement at the end of the debate will be read abroad and studied carefully. I plead with him to offer the olive branch. Only by doing that to the French Government is there any chance of Her Majesty's Government achieving the aim of their policy which is our entry into Europe. If my right hon. Friend does not intend to offer the olive branch, he must say that there is no chance whatever of going into Europe. This would be a tragedy. I urge on my right hon. Friend conciliation as the one means of securing his policy.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. John Peel: There is one point put by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) that I should like to take up. I am certainly not uncritical of the Government's diplomatic handling of this crisis. On the face of it, it gives scope for a great deal of worry because it seems that it was badly timed and badly handled. But I must excuse the Government from making deliberate attempts to isolate France. This I do not believe from what I have seen over a number of years in the Assemblies of Western European Union and the Council of Europe.
I would remind those two hon. Members of the recent diplomatic initiative by M. Harmel, the Foreign Minister of Belgium, who put forward a way in which Europe might begin to try to get closer together, outside the Treaty of Rome, because of the absolute blank wall with which we have been faced for at least 10 years. There was no secret about this, it was perfectly open and M. Harmel and the rest of the W.E.U. countries made it abundantly clear that they wanted France in on these conversations, but that any absence of France from anything that flowed from this initiative was entirely a French decision and that there was no attempt by the Six, secretly, to try to get

talks without France. Let us be clear that we have all always made it abundantly clear that there can be no Europe without France and no Europe without Britain.
I speak as a loyal member of the Assembly of W.E.U. and a member of the British delegation. I feel that I have that right because I was in the chair of the General Affairs Committee of W.E.U. last week when the crisis at Luxemburg was discussed and I am the British Vice-President of the W.E.U. Assembly. I would go a little further than the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). This is not quite as narrow as he likes to make out. This latest crisis was not the beginning of the story. The beginning of it was the meeting at Luxemburg on 6th to 7th February, of the Council of Ministers of W.E.U.
I have found it very difficult to discover what the truth about that meeting was. There are two different stories, both from highly-placed sources. The British and other source tell us that there was a general discussion as to how precisely meetings could be held with the Seven to discuss international relations, whether on the basis of ad hoc meetings, which was rather the French view, or at regular intervals, which was the view of the other Six, including us. That was not resolved. Then there was a discussion on the Middle East. Our story is that the Foreign Secretary was quite prepared to discuss the Middle East as far as possible at that time and did so, but that he wanted deeper and more expert discussions in London the following week, before the meeting of the big Four.
Put that way it seems to me a very reasonable proposition, but I have heard another story that the Foreign Secretary was not very willing to discuss the Middle East at that meeting, and said he had not got his papers, and so on. I do not know the fully story. Maybe the Foreign Secretary will tell us. It may be something between the two. Inevitably this crisis, which was the beginning of the worsening of Anglo-French relations, came up in an emergency debate in the Assembly of W.E.U., and this was perfectly right and proper. This is exactly what the Assembly of Parliamentarians of W.E.U. exists to do—to take


note of crises which may arise in the Council of Ministers and the seven countries, to discuss them and let them know what the parliamentarians think about them.
It was perfectly natural—and I have been on this for nine years—for this to arise as an emergency debate. The resolution eventually agreed and approved by a very large majority, both in the Committee, over which I presided, and in the Assembly was a very reasonable one. It simply stated that we much regretted that this crisis had arisen; we congratulated the Ministers that they were holding conversations of importance on foreign affairs. We said that we hoped that France would return to take part in the discussions. We recalled Article VIII of the revised Brussels Treaty, and we thought it was arguable whether it provided for such discussion. This did not seem to me a hostile resolution to France or anyone else.
Unfortunately, once again we see signs and hear rumblings that when France throws a tantrum we are isolating France. We must resist this. This has been going on for years. I ask quietly: what about Britain? We have been trying to make it clear, under both Governments here for the last 12 years, that we are good Europeans and want to come along and work with them, and we have failed to get anywhere. Over 10 years I have watched from the vantage point of the Assembly of the Council of Europe and W.E.U. all attempts—some of them well-founded, perhaps some of them not so well-founded—to obtain closer political co-operation, foiled and stultified all along the line. Some in Europe have paid lip-service to the need for Britain to be in the Community, but when we have asked and successive Governments have done this, under what circumstances and in what conditions, specific and practical answer comes there none—ever.
Each time we ask, some new reason is trotted out as to why we are not yet fit for membership. I have heard comments about this at reasonable and fairly mild meetings of the Assembly of W.E.U. It is said we must not be rude to the French, we must not try to isolate France. This is an assembly of Parliamentarians, where we are used to the cut and thrust of debate, and over the years I have taken part in debates in that

Assembly where the exchanges were far rougher than last week.
I can remember members of the French delegation pulling no punches and we doing the same with them. I have good friends in France still, and I hope that they will long continue to be so. But in these circumstances we really would need the patience of Job just to sit down and do nothing. I can remember, when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House were in government, going to W.E.U. and having discussions with the French about these things and disagreeing with them profoundly. We were not mealy-mouthed and did not take each other the wrong way.
Because all attempts to get closer to Europe have been blocked, and sometimes not always with good temper, are we really just to sit back and do nothing for fear of annoying some of our friends in Europe If that is so, then we will be called weak-kneed, spineless and lacking in a desire to come closer to Europe—with some reason. Although the Brussels Treaty appears to be in political disarray, I do not believe that it is in disarray in other directions. It is very interesting that, although after the meeting at Luxemburg, France made some very hostile noises about boycotting the Assembly of W.E.U., all her representatives turned up; it was the strongest French delegation that we have ever had. In the General Affairs Committee all the French delegates were there and contributed to the debate which was harmonious, intelligent and sensible.
I do not believe that France wants to torpedo the vital parts of the Brussels Treaty. We have to show some resolution some time if we want to get where many of us in this House think we should get. Unless I can be reassured by the Foreign Secretary, I do not at all like the Prime Minister's tactics in Bonn. I cannot help feeling that, in diplomatic language, he might even have told Dr. Kiesinger to keep his trap shut until the right moment. I very much dislike the way things are going with these constant leaks. I am a great believer in secret diplomacy until the right moment, but I do not believe that the British people want successive British Governments to refuse for ever to say "boo" to the goose or the British fly to flop blindly into the spider's web


when invited into the parlour by some other route.
Whether the forces hostile to freedom will give us in Western Europe time to draw forward inch by painful inch to unity is problematical; but on our present divided path Western Europe will have little effective say in the great crises which are arising at the moment and will arise inevitably in the coming years. Western Europe's voice is almost mute and totally ineffective in the great world problems of today and so it will remain until we manage to forge unity. I believe any British Government is to that extent to be applauded if it makes some attempt to try to get some movement towards this greater unity.

Mr. Neil Marten: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman has resumed his seat. I was on the point of calling Mr. Cronin.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I am most strongly in favour of the closest possible associations between Great Britain and Europe and the strengthening of N.A.T.O. to the greatest possible extent. I wish to make my position clear because it may not be the same as that of some of my hon. Friends. It seems to me that we are totally lacking in reality as regards entering E.E.C. if we cannot establish some kind of understanding with France. The events of the last 10 days have been extremely unfortunate and could be a source of pleasure to nobody except the Communist countries of the world.
There can be no dispute on the fact that a breach of confidence has been committed by Her Majesty's Government. On the other hand, there are occasions when a breach of confidence is justifiable and others when it may be less so. It is worth looking into this. First of all, there is no doubt that the Foreign Office has been under a constant and severe strain as far as dealings with the French Government have been concerned. The Head of the French Government has been completely obstructive to our very reasonable and proper attempts to get into Europe and has presented us with numerous difficulties. There is therefore no question

that there has been considerable provocation leading to our present situation.
When the President made his proposals to our Ambassador in Paris he could not have made them at a worse or more embarrassing time for us, so again I sympathise with the Foreign Secretary's difficulties. In that connection it is worth mentioning that although the Foreign Secretary must take full responsibility for it, it was not he who committed the actual breach of confidence that took place. It seems to me nevertheless that in spite of the provocations and difficulties it was neither necessary nor desirable that this breach of confidence should have taken place in the way it did.
I believe it would have been possible to have given the French Government more warning in the time available or, alternatively, that it would have been possible to tell Dr. Kiesinger that certain proposals had been made by the French Government and to say, without going into details, that further discussions would take place with him about those French proposals when we were in a position to do so. I do not think that it was necessary to disclose these confidential discussions in the way they were disclosed. I agree that the Government were under severe difficulties when the leak commenced in the French Press, but even then that leak could have been counteracted by official means short of an actual communication between the Prime Minister and the German Chancellor, and dealt with at a much lower level.
There is no doubt that some advantages have accrued as a result of this disclosure.

Mr. William Molloy: It would seem from what has been so often repeated this afternoon that British foreign policy is to be dictated and guided by French newspapers. It is about time we gave up that idea.

Mr. Cronin: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point, but I do not think it is relevant to the one I am making. There is no doubt that there has been some advantage from this disclosure in that the personal prestige of General de Gaulle, who without doubt has been the stumbling block to all our attempts to get into Europe, has been to some extent devalued in his own country and in Europe; but I do not believe that it has been devalued


to an extent which will give us any great advantage. It can also be said that the countries of E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. probably realise now that we are even more strongly on the side of entering E.E.C. and on the side of N.A.T.O., but this could not be more than a marginal advantage, because our position was absolutely clear before.
Another point made by some hon. Gentlemen is that we have avoided being caught in a trap. I believe the trap is entirely hypothetical. There is no evidence at all that the French Government have set a trap on this occasion. I would suggest that there has been no occasion in the last few years when they have ever set a trap. On other occasions we have been faced by blank walls of refusal but never by dishonest behaviour; and even if one must admit that the head of the French Government is a difficult, stubborn and obstinate type of person to deal with——

Mr. Molloy: And ungrateful.

Mr. Cronin: —and ungrateful, maybe, it has never been suggested that he is in any way dishonourable, so the question of a trap is somewhat hypothetical. Obviously, the disadvantages of this disclosure are of a most serious nature. First of all, for the very first time for years, there has been an opportunity for conversations at the highest level between the British and French Governments to deal with our differences. That opportunity has been dissipated in a really hopeless manner and is not likely to be renewed for a very long time.
Secondly, one cannot visualise in the near or even the distant future any French Government attempting any kind of confidential discussions again. Any possibility of confidence between the British and French Governments must have very seriously receded into the distance. It is not irrelevant to say this may well have an effect on other countries. What other countries are going to take part in confidential discussions with Her Majesty's Government if they feel that those confidences will be breached whenever it is considered convenient or desirable to do so?
I am strongly in favour of the rather tough line which the Foreign Secretary has been taking with the French Government over the last few months. I believe that his insistence on making closer ties

with W.E.U., his general diplomatic manoeuvre to outflank the French Government, has been desirable. It is probable, for that reason, that General de Gaulle offered to have talks with Britain. It is the British outflanking manoeuvre which has probably been effective in bringing about this attempt by the General to have a rapprochement. I believe that the Government would be well advised to continue the attempts to get 'a closer association with the W.E.U. It shows a lack of realism, however, to imagine that we can get into the European Economic Community or have effective close contacts with Europe, without a much fuller understanding with France.
What has taken place has been extremely unfortunate. I strongly suggest that the Government should at the earliest possible moment try once more to initiate bilateral talks with the French Government. Whether we like it or not, there is no doubt that France has an absolute veto on our entry into Europe and the Economic Community. However much we make ourselves agreeable to Western Germany or the other countries of Western Europe, France is the key to the situation. Entering Europe cannot be done without the consent of the French Government. I urge the Foreign Secretary to make every possible attempt to have bilateral talks as soon as possible to try to induce the French to forget this very unhappy episode in our relations and, once more, to restore ourselves to good terms with the French Government and so to get into the European Economic Community.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: There is very little doubt, I think, that a fundamental diplomatic mistake was made at some stage. I say that because there is a state of open disagreement between ourselves and France, with both countries flinging accusations at one another. This situation could not exist unless some party or other made a mistake at some stage. Whether it was a mistake in calculation by General de Gaulle or a mistake in reaction by the United Kingdom—both or either could be called tactical mistakes—is not terribly important. The damage has been done and we must bend our efforts to undo it and to see where we go from here.
There is no question that the General made some very interesting and far-reaching proposals. If he really meant what he said to the British Ambassador, his proposals were certainly worthy of serious study and further discussions. Some of us may not be particularly taken with his proposal for a four-Power directorate, but he had some interesting views to put forward about the future of European defence. We on the Liberal bench have been interested for a long time in the possibility of a non-nuclear European defence community and the eventual withdrawal by the United States and the U.S.S.R., with a joint nuclear guarantee of Europe. While we accept entirely that N.A.T.O. is essential for the time being, surely no hon. Member can refuse to see the possibility of development and the time when N.A.T.O. is no longer required.
We accept that full and frank discussions with our friends and allies are necessary before we enter into any new arrangements for Europe. But I ask the Foreign Secretary whether on this occasion the timing was correct and the approach right. Should not the agreement of the French have been obtained before Chancellor Kiesinger and others were informed? I know that there was some suspicion and a possible risk of a trap. There was the risk of the French being given the opportunity to place Britain in an invidious position vis-à-vis the other members of the European Economic Community. But should not they have been informed as a matter of diplomatic courtesy?
Alternatively, if that was not possible—and I do not believe that this specific proposal has been made, although in retrospect it is regrettable—could not we openly and warmly have accepted the invitation to talk? We could have initiated the invitation, as suggested by the General, without the preparation of a damaging agenda and a list of proposals. We could have informed our friends and allies that we had agreed to such talks but, at the same time, have assured them that we would not commit them or ourselves to a specific plan or course of action without first having full and frank discussions with them as well as with France. I ask the Foreign Secretary why this line of approach was not possible.
As I have said, like many hon. Members, I am less concerned about the damage which has been done than about the possibilities of increasing European co-operation and unity. That is the direction in which we must proceed. That is the direction in which the broad road leads, whatever the diversions on the way. We may have been thwarted in our efforts to enter Europe by way of the E.E.C., but that is by no means the only possible door. If that is shut, there is still Western European Union and the Harmel Plan. As it appears that the General believes that the European Economic Community has, for the time being anyway, reached stalemate, we could possibly work out a plan based on linking the E.E.C. with E.F.T.A., with the inclusion of France, even if it means a temporary step backwards from the Community in political and market integration.
It is surely apparent that there is a very dangerous vacuum to be filled between East and West, a gap which Britain alone or France alone has not the resources to fill. The only answer eventually is a united Europe, however hard it may be to achieve. We on this bench, and myself in particular, and many other hon. Members greatly regret the damage which has been done—I believe that it is only temporary damage—to British-French relations as a result of this incident. Could not we express our regret to France—I am not talking about apologies; I do not think that they are appropriate. Could not we reaffirm our willingness to talk? Could not we suggest an international conference on unity to which all members of the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. and countries like Yugoslavia might be invited? This might do something to repair the damage which has been done.

6.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): Some hon. Members have sought to make this a narrow debate, concentrating on such criticisms as they could make of the Government's handling of the matter. Others have widened it into a general discussion of Europe. In justice to the Government, I must first deal with the narrower accusation, which seemed to change its form a good deal


as one critic succeeded another. But I shall want also to say, for the issue is very important, something about the future of Europe and the Government's European policy.
May I deal with the criticisms, such as they are, of the Government's handling of the matter. As the debate proceeded, it became more and more clear that the criticism was narrowing down to a very slender point indeed, sometimes giving one the uncomfortable impression that some hon. Members were desperately looking for something for which they could blame the Government. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) said, in effect, that this is a sad situation and it must be somebody's fault. No doubt that is an arguable and likely proposition, but neither the Government, nor, I hope, the House, would start out with the assumption that if there are difficulties in international affairs they must be the British Government's fault and we must go on hunting round until we have evidence for that proposition. Was it considered wrong for our Ambassador to take a record? I do not think that anyone suggests that. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) mentioned Rambouillet: with memories of Rambouillet, it was clearly wise of the Ambassador to take a record.
Next, there was the allegation that the Ambassador's record was inaccurate. I am glad to say that that accusation has not been echoed this afternoon, and I doubt whether we shall hear more of it either here or elsewhere. Third, it has been asked: did the Government send a misleading or distorted account of the Ambassador's record to our allies? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) yesterday made that allegation by implication, but did not repeat it, much less produce any evidence for it, today. I must plainly deny the implied allegation.
The nearest the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire got to putting forward the proposition that although the record was accurate we somehow distorted it was to say that we must remember that the General was speaking in a philosophical or oracular vein, that perhaps we did not give sufficient weight to this, and did not realise that the General was envisaging a Europe in the future. This allegation

is a far cry from that made by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone that we gave a misleading and distorted account.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The point I made yesterday in an intervention was that in view of the extremely delicate nature of the whole affair, it would have seemed proper to have circulated to our embassies abroad a copy of the note made by the Ambassador, rather than an interpretation of it.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention yesterday consisted of two words. I had just told the House that our account was not misleading, and the right hon. Gentleman's comment was "Says you!" The implication was that I was not telling the truth.
I do not think, therefore, that this will seriously be argued, except in the very attenuated, emaciated sense in which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire spoke, which was that we had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the General was speaking with an eye on the future.
I ask the House to notice again that in what I said yesterday in replying to a Question I had in mind at this point the instructions we gave to our ambassadors in the countries concerned. I made it very clear by the use of phrases like "the General wanted to see" and "the General would like to see" that these were prognostications into the future. I do not think, therefore, that it can be said that we failed to notice this point. But it is true, and it is no distortion at all to say it, that the General made very clear what his preferences—to put it at its mildest—for the future of Europe were. So in reporting that to our allies we were not distorting what the General had said.
It was quite clear——

Mr. Hastings: Before the Foreign Secretary leaves this section of his speech, would he reconsider his refusal to place in the Library copies of the Ambassador's account of the interview, and also of the communication sent to others?

Mr. Stewart: I was asked that question yesterday. I said that it would be an extremely unusual step, but that if the accuracy of our Ambassador's record was seriously challenged I would have to consider doing so. But I do not


think that that challenge is seriously made. Further, if hon. Members are to say on no evidence at all that we have sent untruthful reports in our messages overseas and demand that we must publish every telegram in order to disprove allegations for which no evidence has been offered—well, no responsible person would suggest such a thing.
The allegation about the record, therefore, was wrong—the record was an accurate record. The allegation that we distorted the record is pared down to a tiny philosophical point, and then practically dropped altogether.
Then comes the objection that it was a breach of confidence for us to inform our allies. Not everyone made that objection, and in the end even that was narrowed down to saying that it was wrong to inform our allies before we had told the French that we intended to do so. That matter I will deal with in a moment, but let me first take the wider complaint made by some hon. Members that it was wrong to inform our allies at all.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) made a good deal of this point. He asked what would be the general feeling of any Government wanting to talk to Britain, and asked us to make it clear that this is not a general practice, and is not recognised or usual practice. That I certainly say. It is my case here that the circumstances were of such a special character that it was right for us to inform our allies of what had been said to us. But in this particular case we must notice, first of all, the nature of the proposal that the General made, and notice that his expressed wish about what he would like to see happen in Europe was linked with a definite proposal that we should have talks with him. So it cannot be regarded as mere philosophising.
The proposals were of a nature that gravely affected the interest of our allies: those with regard to N.A.T.O. clearly affected our relations with the United States; those with regard to the future of the Common Market clearly affected our allies in Europe. This proposal was made at a time—to take up a point raised yesterday afternoon—when it was public knowledge that President Nixon was0

about to visit Europe, at a time when it was known that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would shortly be visiting Germany, and in a situation in which it had been known for some time that it has been the public posture of Her Majesty's Government to say that we want to enter the European economic communities.
I can take the point of those hon. Members who say, "May there not be something in the General's ideas? Let us discuss them." What hon. Members have failed to comment on in this debate is that we did say to the French that we were ready to enter into conversations with them but that it must be clear in the light of the nature of the proposals they were making and their effect on our friends and allies that we must inform our friends and allies.
There was the further consideration—which I do not rate as highly as did some hon. Members but which I do not believe a Government with any sense of realism could overlook—of the risk that if we were not quick to tell our allies about this matter they might hear of it from other sources and in a less friendly way. I say no more than that this was not a consideration that could be totally overlooked. In the light of all those things, our position was that we should have been guilty of a breach of faith with our allies if we had not told them, and I believe only one or two hon. Members opposite pressed the criticism to the point of saying that we ought not to have told our allies at all.
In the end, therefore, the criticism in this search for something in order to prove the Government wrong has narrowed itself down to the point of the relative timing of when we told various Governments, the French on the one hand and our other allies on the other hand. I have already dealt with the point that we gave them an accurate account of what had passed between our Ambassador and the General.
What about the timing? The whole process of information began on 12th February, and, as I told the House yesterday, the actual moment at which the disclosure is made to a Government depends on the exact timing of the interview between our Ambassador and the person to whom he speaks. It was decided to


give this information on 12th February. The information was given by my right hon. Friend, since he was in Germany at the time, to Chancellor Kiesinger at about 4.30 p.m. The information was given to the French Government at about 8 o'clock, to the American Government at about 11.30 p.m., British time, to others during the evening, and to two on the following morning.
The gravamen of the criticism is that we did not inform the French before we informed the Germans. I have already told the House that we felt we should be in breach of faith to our allies if we did not tell them at all. I have stressed why it was necessary that we should make it quite clear that we were not asking permission to do what we believed we were under a duty to our allies to do.
Finally on this point down to which the criticism has narrowed, it is interesting to notice that although a limited number of hon. Members have made that criticism, some with a good deal of bitterness, nobody else in Europe makes that criticism, not even the French. The French have objected to our telling our allies at all, but that does not find agreement with most hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite. The benches opposite seem to be raising the narrow point of "when", a point which the French have not taken.
Moreover, it is also true that our action has been not criticised but welcomed by the other Five and generally among those who want to see the unity of Europe.

Mr. Edward Heath: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way, but he is, as far as a large number of people on these benches are concerned, working on a false assumption. He himself said yesterday that he accepted that the President of France believed that these conversations with the Ambassador were confidential. We do not accept, in these circumstances, that the Foreign Secretary was able to deduce on his own, without any warning or discussions on how the matter should be handled, that he had the duty to give the information to others. If the Foreign Secretary is saying that he is under this obligation, either because we have applied to join the Common Market or because of the Luxemburg Agreement, then, of course, this denies his other argument

that this is an exceptional case, because it means that he is under an obligation, as the result of Luxemburg or a general point, to inform everybody of every consultation, even though the other party believes that it is confidential.

Mr. Stewart: The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks shows that he did not listen to what I was saying when I gave my reasons for regarding this as a special case. The obligation to tell them was not merely because they were our partners in W.E.U. but because these proposals were of a nature that seriously affected their prosperity and security, and it would have undermined our good faith if we had appeared at one time to be seeking entry into the Community and at another time, behind their backs, to be discussing the disappearance of the Community or its transformation into something quite different.

Mr. Heath: Mr. Heath rose——

Mr. Stewart: No. As to the first part part of his remarks where the right hon. Gentleman tried to clear up what previous speakers have not, whether the charge is that we ought not to have told our allies at all, or whether the charge is that we should not have told them first, I have given the reasons why I believe that we ought to have told them, but if there is to be criticism on either count, let us look at what alternative course of action has been urged upon us by our critics.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire said that what we should have done was to have told our allies—and he was not specific about whether we should have done this with or without French consent—that we had had a first conversation with the French. We did tell them that. He said that we should have explained that in that conversation a number of the General's familiar ideas had come out, but presumably without specifying exactly what the General had said. Third, he said that we should have said that we were going to have further talks. We have done what the right hon. Gentleman advises us to do in every respect except one. We told our allies that we had had a first conversation. We told them that we had replied that we would be ready to have further talks. The right hon. Gentleman


says that we ought to have said that some of the General's familiar ideas came out in the conversation, but we went a bit further and specified what had, in fact, come out.
If the Government are to be criticised for following the course which they did and not the one advocated by the right hon. Gentleman, this is a very feeble case. Had we done what he advised, we should have told our allies that in this conversation with the French a lot of familiar ideas came out and then left them to speculate on what was actually said. I cannot accept that that would have been a better handling of the matter.
In the event then, when the critics have finished they are not perfectly clear whether they are saying that we ought not to have told our allies without France's consent, or that we ought not to have told our allies without first telling the French. The only recipe of alternative action offered to us is one that seems to me and to most people who have considered it to be inferior both in wisdom and in frankness to what we did.
Very briefly, I must turn to the contributions of those hon. Members who sought to widen the debate and consider the position in Europe generally. I will take up first the references to Western European Union. It has been suggested that it was wrong for us to use W.E.U. for this purpose. Let us be clear on the purpose for which we are using it. Nobody has the illusion that by discussions with W.E.U. we can get into the Common Market; it is not a tenable proposition. We say that it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to enter the Common Market. While we are barred from entry to the Market we want to seek co-operation in Europe with all who will co-operate with us in those areas that are not barred by the Common Market. That is the right policy.
What would happen if we did not do that? Nearly all the efforts for European unity and consultation would get concentrated in the one focus of the Common Market, from which we should be excluded, and I do not believe that would be a right policy. That is why we have proceeded as we have in Western European Union.
Here again, I ask those who criticise the Government to notice in what a tiny

minority they are. The step that we have taken has been welcomed by all the Western European Governments except France. At the recent conference of the W.E.U. Parliamentarians, the Resolution, which however tactfully worded, made it quite clear that they thought that what we and the others had done was right and hoped that France would join us, was passed by a decisive majority, among whom were to be found all those delegates who were members of the party opposite with a very few exceptions.
I cannot see, therefore, when most of our friends in Europe believe that we are acting wisely and in the best interests of Europe, that there should be Members desperately looking round to say, "Whatever the great issues, our immediate purpose is somehow or other to try to prove the Government were wrong."
There are great issues. If I have had to reply bluntly and plainly to what I think were quite unjustified criticisms, I hope, none the less, that right hon. and hon. Members will accept that many of us share in common the desire to bring Europe together—first, a united Western Europe; then better understanding between East and West. I know that this cannot be done by trying either to exclude France or Germany, or by any dodging between one and the other. Nobody can point to any action of the Government that has had that purpose. At every stage we have made it clear, as in the W.E.U. discussions, that the place for France was there and that she was welcome.
We cannot accept that there can be no progress in Europe without French consent. While we have no desire to seek to play one group off against another, since in the Common Market five countries are desperately anxious to see us come in, we cannot behave as if their good will were of no account. I believe that is the situation with which we are faced.
Since there is this difference between Britain and France, we must try to repair the damage. I accept none of the accusations that the damage is of our making, and I certainly should not apologise for something that is not our fault and that hardly anybody in Europe would dream of thinking was our fault.
We must now build up. I do not believe this to be impossible. In the end,


I think there are forces and necessities which will bring Western Europe together. But we shall not get there unless the Government continue to make clear that their policy is to get into the Market, and meanwhile to seek every other available form of co-operation.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire began by asking what the objective

was. It was to continue to make clear our real policy. This we have done.

Mr. Hastings: Mr. Hastings rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 270.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[6.43 p.m.


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Ridley, Hn Nicholas


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Body, Richard
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stainton, Keith


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Loveys, W. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


du Cann Rt. Hn. Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Waddington, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Emery, Peter
Maxwell, Robert
Worsley, Marcus


Fortescue, Tim
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wright, Esmond


Foster, Sir John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhart, Philip
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Stephen Hastings and


Gresham Cooke, R.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.






NOES


Alldritt, Walter
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hattersley, Roy


Anderson, Donald
Dell, Edmund
Hazell, Bert


Archer, Peter
Dempsey, James
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Ashley, Jack
Dewar, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Henig, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Doig, Peter
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunn, James A.
Hilton, W. S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
Hooley, Frank


Barnes, Michael
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Horner, John


Barnett, Joel
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Beaney, Alan
Edelman, Maurice
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Bence, Cyril
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howie, W.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hoy, James


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ellis, John
Huckfield, Leslie


Binns, John
English, Michael
Hughes, Rt. Hn.Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bishop, E. S.
Ensor, David
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Faulds, Andrew
Hunter, Adam


Booth, Albert
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, John


Boyden, James
Finch, Harold
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir Eric (lslington, E.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foley, Maurice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Ford, Ben
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fowler, Gerry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Carmichael, Neil
Gardner, Tony
Judd, Frank


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, W. E.
Kelley, Richard


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ginsburg, David
Kenyon, Clifford


Chapman, Donald
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Coe, Denis
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Coleman, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lawson, George


Concannon, J. D.
Gregory, Arnold
Leadbitter, Ted


Conian, Bernard
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Ledger, Ron


Crawshaw, Richard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Cronin, John
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Cullen, Mrs, Alice
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lee, John (Reading)


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamling, William
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Harper, Joseph
Lipton, Marcus


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Lomas, Kenneth


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Loughlin, Charles


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Haseldine, Norman
Luard, Evan




Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Skeffington, Arthur


McBride, Neil
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Small, William


MacColl, James
Padley, Walter
Snow, Julian


MacDermot, Niall
Paget, R. T.
Spriggs, Leslie


Macdonald, A. H.
Palmer, Arthur
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


McGuire, Michael
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Parkin Ben (Paddington, N.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mackie, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Taverne, Dick


Mackintosh, John P.
Pavitt, Laurence
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thornton, Ernest


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pentland, Norman
Tinn, James


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Tomney, Frank




Tuck, Raphael


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E
Urwin, T. W.


Manuel, Archie
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Varley, Eric G.


Mapp, Charles
Probert, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Marks, Kenneth
Randall, Harry
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marquand, David
Rankin, John
Wallace, George


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rees, Merlyn
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Mayhew, Christopher
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Weitzman, David


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Richard, Ivor
Wellbeloved, James


Millan, Bruce
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitaker, Ben


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Molloy, William
Robertson, John (paisley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P' c' as)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roebuck Roy
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Rose, paul
Williams, W.T. (Warrington)


Moyle, Roland
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Willis, Ht. Hn. George


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rowlands, E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Murray, Albert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Winnick, David


Neal, Harold
Sheldon, Robert
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Oakes, Gordon
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Woof, Robert


O'Malley, Brian
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Oram, Albert E.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)



Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Charles Grey and


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Alan Fitch.

It being after three hours after the commencement of Proceedings, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the Proceedings, pursuant to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important

matter that should have urgent consideration), and the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 19th February].

[MR. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Clause 2

RESTRICTION OF RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE LORDS

6.55 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 2, line 44, at end insert:
(2) No payment shall be made from public funds, other than an allowance in respect of reasonable expenses incurred in attending in Parliament or a salary payable to a Minister of the Crown, to any voting peer during a period of five years immediately following the coming into force of this Act: any voting peer who receives such a payment from public funds shall be disqualified as from the receipt of such payment from being a voting peer under section 2 of this Act.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we are taking new Clause 8—Remuneration of peers, new Clause 18—Salaries of members of House of Lords, and Amendment No. 79, in the Preamble, page 1, line 6, after 'of', insert 'unremunerated'.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Thank you, Mr. Irving.
The purpose of the Amendment is to make an honest woman of the Prime Minister. If my hon. Friends feel that that is an excessive illustration of the doctrine of the omnicompetence of Parliament, I shall put it another way and say that it is designed, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, to give statutory recognition to what he said on Second Reading.
Up to the Second Reading of the Bill and most of the way through the Prime Minister's speech on the Second Reading, the Government's position on the question of remuneration for the members of the new Upper House was clear and plain. I should like to recall to the memory of the Committee the words of

the latter part of paragraph 52 of the White Paper Cmnd. 3799:
The Government considers that members without private means should not thereby be prevented from playing a full part, and therefore proposes that voting peers should in future receive some remuneration (subject to tax) which would reflect the responsibilities and duties which they would be expected to undertake. The question should however, be referred to an independent body similar to the Committee on the Remuneration of Ministers and Members of Parliament (the Lawrence Committee) which reported in 1964 (Cmnd. 2516).
That is clear language as to the Government's intention, and it expresses, if I may say so without impertinence, the not unreasonable view that the system proposed in the Bill would not work unless some remuneration as such were paid to members of the Upper House, or the disagreeable alternative were adopted of appointing only rich men. In the choice between those two I am fully in agreement with the Government's previous point of view.
I ask the Committee to note the words that the salary would have to be such as to
reflect the responsibilities and duties
of the post. Obviously at that time the Government contemplated not only the payment of remuneration, but the payment of remuneration on a fairly substantial scale. They would have to do so, because they would have to take into account the proposal elsewhere in the Bill that a voting peer will lose that status if he does not attend on at least one-third of the occasions on which the House sits. It is obvious that such a voting peer, particularly if he is fairly young, would not have the opportunity to earn a living outside on any reasonable scale if he had that obligation as well. Therefore, up to this point, the Government's proposals, whether one likes them or not, hang together as a coherent whole.
It is, of course, the essence of the scheme—and this is one reason why many of us dislike it so much—that members of the other House are, and must be, and will be intended to be, paid professionals. It is because that House will be composed of paid professionals that the intention is to create a considerably smaller Chamber, beginning at any rate at about one-third of the size of this one. That all hangs together—a Chamber of paid professionals earning


their living as such, a House comparatively limited in numbers and to all intents and purposes whole-time.
7.0 p.m.
What makes the present situation the more remarkable is that the Prime Minister accepted this in the earlier part of his speech on Second Reading. He said:
Unpaid or substantially unpaid men or women of this kind can be recommended for appointment to the Upper House only on the basis that either they will have to give up their careers or follow them only half-time, or they will be able to attend in the Lords only on a very part-time basis. Refusal to face this issue, therefore, means that the objective of ensuring that the second Chamber is truly representative of all regions, of all sections of our public life, and of a wide range of age groups, will be most difficult to realise.
That, in rather better language than I used, is the Prime Minister making the point about the essence of the scheme.
As far down as column 54, he is accepting this view. Then comes the sudden reversal which caused me to table the Amendment. He said:
In the light of these considerations,"—
I will not weary the House by quoting them all; they were criticisms of the very large amount of patronage which arises from a paid Upper Chamber—
which I think ought to have more thought given to them, the Government have decided not to pursue the White Paper proposal about payment. The existing system of tax-free expenses will, therefore, continue, but there will be no salary and, equally, there will be no examination, such as we originally suggested, to take place by an independent committee, such as the Lawrence Committee which investigated House of Commons remuneration and this will, therefore, not take place at this stage.
This will enable us to see how the reformed House works in practice, to see what form of remuneration is best fitted to enable voting peers to give the necessary time to the work of the reformed House, and to form a considered view of the broader issues involved, including those which I have just mentioned. This does not mean that we have decided that voting Members should not be paid at some time in the future or that they should. It simply means that we are preserving an open mind so that the matter can be considered in the light of experience at a more suitable time in the future.
It is not wholly surprising that, after that sentence, the OFFICIAL REPORT records:
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS rose——".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 54–55.]

That has altered, of course, the whole pattern of the proposals.
This faces all of us with a problem which we should examine. The Amendments, I suggest, with all diffidence as to the drafting, reflects exactly what the Prime Minister says that he wants to be done. Some people have unworthy suspicions about the Prime Minister. They suspect that the purpose of that passage in his speech was simply to allay anxieties about the large creation of additional patronage, which the Bill's proposals in their original form involved—an anxiety and unhappiness which has arisen on both sides of the Committee—until the Bill was through.
When it was through, if there were no mention of this subject in the Bill, it would, of course, be perfectly easy—the Home Secretary, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, will confirm this—to provide for the salaries in the Estimates and put them into operation on the authority of the Appropriation Act, with, in practice, no opportunity for the House to consider them. If, on the other hand, the Committee is good enough to accept the Amendment, it will still be possible for pay to be provided for members of another place during the five years, if, but only if, the Government at that time bring forward a proposal to repeal what would then be a section of this Measure.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to proceed on what I think is a false hypothesis. My understanding is that before remuneration could be introduced a Resolution in both Houses would be needed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find, in the recesses of a Department with which both he and I were associated, that provision could be made—to take one example, provision was made to pay the Parliamentary Commissioner in advance of statutory authority—simply under the authority of the Estimates and the Appropriation Act. Therefore, with great respect to a former Chancellor, I think that he is wrong about this. Not only can it be done, but it has been done, although in that particular case there was a good deal of criticism of the procedure followed. But I suggest that this is a perfectly possible course.
On the other hand, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if we put a statutory prohibition into this Measure, it will only be possible to provide this payment during the five years covered by it if the Government come forward, first, with a provision explicitly repealing this one. I suggest that this is the fairest way to deal with this issue of remuneration. I selected five years as the period for which a prohibition would last, again in the light of what the Prime Minister said—that the Government wanted some time to have experience of how this worked. Five years is still the maximum duration of a Parliament, and if a genuine investigation of how this works is really intended and the suspicions that I mentioned are unfounded, it is surely a reasonable period.
If the Amendment is accepted, it will be perfectly possible to provide pay without repealing any provision after five years, if in the light of that experience—which the Prime Minister, I stress, says that he wants—it turned out to be required. Therefore, I propose the Amendment very much in the belief that it would be right for the Government to accept it. It seeks to do no more and no less than what the head of the Administration himself has said he wants to do. It would put paid once and for all to any suspicions in any quarter of the Committee that this large accession of patronage would follow within "a matter of weeks not months", if I may coin a phrase, after the passage of this Measure into law, if it is ever passed into law.
Thus, there could be only one reason—although I must not anticipate the Home Secretary—for not accepting this. That could be the reason why the Home Secretary has withdrawn his Amendments from consideration in Committee. Any experienced Parliamentarian knows that those perfectly reasonable Amendments were withdrawn in the hope of avoiding a Report stage, because under our rules when in Committee of the Whole House no Amendments are put into the Bill, there is no Report stage. Therefore, the only possible reason why the Home Secretary could object to legislative form being given to the Prime Minister's own statement would be that he is anxious, above all, as he has shown by the withdrawal of his own reasonable Amendments, to avoid one of the normal

stages of Parliamentary discussion of a Bill affecting a major change in the Constitution. That this has been done is a little revealing as to the attitude of the Government and the expedients which they are prepared to adopt. However, the Home Secretary can deal with this sensibly and satisfactorily and allay all our worries if he accepts the Amendment.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that on the merits of the matter there is considerable anxiety about the proposed large increase in patronage, a large increase which is in many ways inherent in the proposals in this Bill. It is no use saying, as one or two hon. and, indeed, right hon. Members said on Second Reading, that there is not much of an increase in patronage because the Prime Minister of the day can always recommend to Her Majesty as many gentlemen who desire to be noblemen as he wishes. That is true, but under the Bill as it stands there could be a very great difference; they would be paid.
When one talks of patronage, one is concerned generally with something more substantial than honorific titles. Patronage in the strict sense, patronage in the way in which it was rampant in the eighteenth century, was the provision of paid offices. What is involved here, if no restriction is put on the issue of pay, is the creation of literally hundreds of paid offices, most of them in the gift of the Government of the day—some in the gift of the Leader of the Opposition of the day and, entertainingly enough, in the gift of the Leader of the Liberal Party of the day. That has an alluring touch of comedy about it. Bringing the Liberal Party back after nearly half a century into the field of patronage has almost a sentimental ring about it. This is an important issue, and I make no apology for bringing it before the Committee.
We are concerned with the direct relevance of one of the worst features of this scheme, namely, the creation of patronage on such a scale. It was once said—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) could give the quotation—by Max Beerbohm, I think it was, that somebody's idea of Heaven was eating paté de fois gras to the sound of trumpets. [Interruption.] All right, Sydney Smith


may have said it, but I know that it certainly involved eating paté de fois gras to the sound of trumpets. This proposal would have been the Duke of Newcastle's idea of Heaven: to be provided with hundreds of posts, none of the duties of which was particularly onerous, where the remuneration was comfortable and which could be enjoyed up to the seventy-second birthday. This would have had a wonderful appeal to his late Grace. It is therefore particularly appropriate that, so far as we have been able to discover, the only Minister who really wants this Bill is, by happy chance, the Secretary of State for Social Security.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I agree with the motives which inspired the right hon. Gentleman to move the Amendment, but it has one great fault. It does not do what he hopes to achieve. He makes it clear that he wants an allowance in respect of reasonable expenses. If he reads the debate on the White Paper in the other place he will find that peer after peer asked for a much greater expenses allowance than they are getting now. In fact, the position might be much worse with an increased expenses allowance, which presumably would be tax-free, than with a £2,000 a year taxable salary. Therefore, I prefer my own new Clause to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have studied the hon. Gentleman's new Clause, which has merits, but in defence of my Amendment I suggest that "reasonable expenses" is a technical term and that if either noble Lords or the Government were inclined to take an over-generous view of it, one could rely on the Inland Revenue to stop it.

Mr. Hamilton: I prefer to rest the case on the prices and incomes policy of 3½ per cent. a year, based on increased productivity. Paragraph 52 of the White Paper shows that today peers get a not inconsiderable expense allowance of £4 14s. 6d., plus travelling expenses, provided that they have attended at least one-third of the sittings in the month for which the claim is made. They have to attend only one-third of the days, and even five minutes of a day, to claim their expenses.
If I may quote from a speech which was made in the other place on this very point, the Earl of Mansfield said that it was generally agreed that the figure of £2,000 is rather more than a figure floating in the air, that there was substance in it, and that the Prime Minister's patronage by the introduction of a £2,000 a year salary may well be the beginning of something akin to the corruption in American politics. The Earl of Mansfield went to ask what a voting peer must do to earn his money. This point was not adequately covered by the right hon. Gentleman.

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member quoting from a speech in the current Session of Parliament in another place?

Mr. Hamilton: I am paraphrasing. The Earl of Mansfield then went on to ask what the peer had to do to earn his money. He simply has to go in, catch the Clerk's eye, and sign on the dotted line. That qualifies him for his £4 14s. 6d. If the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is accepted—and the Government might accept it—the Government might say "Let us have reasonable expenses". This could mean that they could sign the book and get 10 guineas a day. Would the right hon. Gentleman call that "reasonable expenses"?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am quite sure that the Inland Revenue would not.

Mr. Hamilton: The Inland Revenue would have nothing whatever to do with it, the Government would decide the figure. If the Lords said "When we come down from Scotland, we must live in the Hilton in proper pomp and circumstance as befits the upper Chamber", then the Inland Revenue will say "Very well we accept that 10 guineas is reasonable expenses"—which might be for five minutes a day, two or three days a week, or whatever it might be. The right hon. Gentleman was on fairly thin ice and his case was inadequate to meet the problem which we see developing if this situation proposed by the Government goes unchallenged.
It is interesting to trace the story of this matter. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Secretary of State for Social Security. He will remember that


that Minister opened the debate on the White Paper last November. He said:
… I should have thought that no hon. Member could say 'No' to that principle.
He was referring to the principle enunciated in paragraph 52 of the White Paper that a working House should have working Members and get the salary for the job, and so on. He went on to say, discussing the relative merits of his salary and the tax-free expenses
… in my experience outside Parliament tax-free expenses are the richest pasture in which business men feed, occasionally raising their heads to admit that a taxed salary provides little fodder for them.
The right hon. Gentleman in his Amendment is arguing that this rich pasture should be made richer for them. The Minister continued:
… tax free expenses are totally inadequate if lack of means is not to become an effective bar to membership of the reformed House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1968; Vol. 773. c 1138–9.]
It is equally interesting to note that in reply, and in support of the Bill although it was tepid support, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) spoke eloquently for half an hour, but not a word about £ s. d.
One must recall the patronage that is available to Ministers, and not just to the Prime Minister to see the danger into which we are running. I have tabled many Questions to various Ministers in recent weeks and I will give the Committee the figures. The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity can appoint 56 people under Statute. Only 38 appointments have been made so far, with salaries ranging from £800 to £15,000 a year. This is small beer—a salary of £2,000—except that this is £2,000 for life, or at least to the age of 72.
The Minister of Transport in 1958 had 58 salaried appointments in his patronage. By 1968 the number had gone up to 126. The Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1958 had 101 appointments in his gift and in 1968 the figure had gone up to 190, nearly a 100 per cent. increase in 10 years. The Minister of Power has 272 statutory appointments, including the top of the Steel Board, where there is a salary of about £20,000 a year.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is £16.000, going up to £27,000 in April. That has been officially leaked.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is the professional collector of leaks and I accept his figures. They show the enormous amount of patronage in the hands of one Minister. The President of the Board of Trade has 105 such appointments, varying from £500 to £15,000 a year and the Secretary of State for Scotland has 117, with salaries up to £9,500. Parliament and the country is so numb, so punch-drunk, by the increased patronage being placed in the hands of the Executive that we tend to look on further extensions of it, such as the one we are now discussing, with a shrug of the shoulders and we say, "What can we do about it?"
The Attorney-General's approach was typical. In the White Paper debate he said:
The so-called patronage … is not the Prime Minister's alone …
It seemed to excuse everything simply because it was more evenly spread. It is nevertheless objectionable for being shared in that the leaders of other political parties are consulted. It is like saying that the guilt of the train robbers is less because so many of them shared the loot. The Attorney-General went on:
It can be said of the exercise of the power of patronage in recent decades that at least it has been free of the taint of corruption".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1313–4.]
Is it? I do not think that the Attorney-General would like to swear to that on oath. I would not. If need be, I could quote names to substantiate the point. It depends on what is meant by "corruption". I suppose that "ineptitude" might be a more appropriate word.
The Attorney-General then argued, as forcibly as only a trained lawyer can for the proposition before him, and he pleaded in mitigation that, first, there was a committee to be appointed to review the composition of the House and, secondly, that there was a convention as to numbers; so that the extent of the patronage was inevitably small.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that there is nothing in the Bill about this committee, about how it is to be appointed and whether the members are to be paid. It will be advisory only. The Prime Minister may refuse to accept its advice and guidance. The White Paper is hazy on pay. It talks about this independent Lawrence-type committee. The


Attorney-General mused about a sliding-scale, dependent on attendance. I suppose that this is the productivity side of the agreement. There would be no payment at all, perhaps, and the matter would be left to yet another committee, the Attorney-General said, in effect.
Then we had the speech of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who was just as shy as his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet—not a word about pay. It was a dirty word to both of them, but in the course of the debate on the White Paper the pay proposals got rough handling from hon. Members on both sides. The speeches in favour of the proposition in the two-day debate on the White Paper can be counted on one hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), very nearly the sole supporter of the pay proposals, said:
… we are in difficulties.
and he concluded:
Let us begin by accepting the necessity for under-payment because of the dangers".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1218.]
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is in his place, will recall that in winding up that debate he spent some time on the subject of patronage and did little more than repeat what the Attorney-General had said. He again said that, in terms of numbers, it was small. But numbers is not the point. It is the prospect of patronage and the prospect of payment. Those are the two points that really matter. On the question of remuneration, my right hon. Friend said:
If there is a salary attached to these posts, then men who are in the House of Commons now will so conduct themselves as not to offend the Government.
He said:
I simply do not accept hon. Members elected to this House will behave any differently from those who have already either accepted or rejected office.
He then said:
I look round and see some of the rebels who have been promoted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1425.]
I do the same. The Treasury Bench is crowded with them, from top to bottom, and my right hon. Friend must know that, for many of them, their silence and acquiescence has been bought.

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has his view and I have mine. I shall be delighted to see him outside and mention names to him, and then, off the record, he will agree with me.
It is interesting that the result of the Vote which took place a matter of minutes after the Home Secretary had spoken showed that over 90 of those who went into the Lobby in favour of the White Paper were on the payroll vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does my hon. Friend suggest that all of them were passionately in favour of all the terms of the White Paper? That is certainly not the case. Does not my right hon. Friend know that there are now hon. Members of the House of Commons who, this very day, are calculating their prospects of going to another place? We meet them every day. They weigh up their chances, especially if they have majorities of less than 5,000.
The Home Secretary will not deny that the pay proposals got a grubbing in the White Paper debate and at our Parliamentary Labour Party meetings. Doubtless it was this concentrated and sustained attack from all sides of the House of Commons which led to the astonishing performance of the Prime Minister on Second Reading, to which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred. The Prime Minister shuffled us off the patronage issue by saying that it had been dealt with very fully by the Home Secretary. On remuneration, he put up the Aunt Sally which was written in black and white in the White Paper and then knocked it down and said, "Let us see how things go".
7.30 p.m.
The Leader of the Liberal Party, with his usual frankness and clarity, made no mention of pay in his 24-minute speech. As we have come to expect from him, the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), made a typically caustic and cynical speech about the Prime Minister's motives and intentions. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman contradicted himself somewhat in his passionate diatribe against the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said at one point that the Lords still had a lot of power and did much useful work. He went on to say that he knew of no institution anywhere which got through so much useful work on practically nothing.


Many of my constituents would not regard £4 14s. 6d. a day as practically nothing. Many of them have to live on that for a week. Almost in the next breath the right hon. Gentleman said that we should not succeed in getting people to do that work without payment. He then went on to deal with the point about patronage, with which I thoroughly agree and which is what I and my colleagues are protesting about tonight.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) quite honestly and frankly said that, if payment were to be expenses only, it would have to be in excess of £4 a day—in fact, it is four and a half guineas a day—and regretted that the Prime Minister had not
had the courage to tell the House of Commons that if the new second Chamber has to do a job of work, its Members must be paid the rate for the job and a proper salary."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, 3rd February, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 153.]
This is the purpose of the new Clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). This is the dilemma in which we are placed. We are being compelled reluctantly to discuss the composition and powers of a second Chamber for whose Members, if the second Chamber is constructed and given powers on the lines indicated in the White Paper, payment is inevitable. All the patronage and the evils of patronage that go with it are equally inevitable. That is why we are forced back to the conclusion all the time that the best thing to do it to get rid of the damned place altogether.
Having got ourselves into this dilemma, we must, consider how we can protect ourselves and our colleagues from this kind of exercise. If there is the payment of a salary or of high expenses, the suspicion—I put it no higher—will be that the exercise of that kind of patronage by party leaders as donors will lead to corruption of the recipients, and not least of prospective hopeful recipients. We see that already in the House of Commons. Anyone who does not is blind.
It is not good enough to say that a committee will overlook this. Will that committee interview the clients put up by the party leaders? Will the clients have to undergo oral and written examinations? Will there be a short list?

Will they be asked for references? We know that the Honours List works through a Committee, and what a lark that is twice every year. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done something to correct some of the worst abuses in the honours system, but there are still many there; and whether that Committee had existed or not those abuses would have continued had my right hon. Friend not done what he did.
I repeat what I said in the debate on the White Paper. I hope that my party and the House of Commons will never accept the idea of a nominated, salaried second Chamber. It has never been the official party policy of the Labour Party. It was one point on which hon. Members on this side in successive private meetings upstairs were consistently unanimous. It is an extremely dangerous and obnoxious pup that is being sold to us by the petticoat bargainers on the two Front Benches. I suspect that the party leaders in another place are the people who want this more than anything.
In my new Clause I am taking the Prime Minister at his word. Leave the pay as it is. That is the least we can do. Let us see how we get on. Any claim for an increase can be sympathetically considered within the terms of the prices and incomes policy—3½ per cent. per annum based on increased productivity, and an experiment for five years. After all, we have the experiment on capital punishment for five years. We have the experiment with British Standard Time for three years. I think it is reasonable to say, "Leave them for five years and see how they get on". Let my right hon. Friend be under no illusion that we are thoroughly opposed to the idea of an entirely nominated, entirely salaried second Chamber of the kind proposed in the White Paper.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said. He disagreed with me slightly on the question of allowances; he said how valuable allowances can be. The point about allowances is that they are valuable to a person who already has an income. They are not much good to a person who does not have an income. The hon. Gentleman said that £4 14s. 6d.


would be very valuable to his constituents. The hon. Gentleman may very well have potential noblemen in his constituency, but £4 14s. 6d. would not be much good to them if they had to spend three days a week in London and then return to Scotland and spend the rest of the time there picking up the information which they needed to represent Scotland.
At the moment, when a Scottish question comes up for debate in the House of Lords—for instance, how many murders there have been in the glens, or whatever it may be—all the Scottish noblemen come down in a body. They do not spend three days a week down here. Even visiting noblemen, some of whom have a certain amount of money, certainly could not afford to do so without remuneration. This is the acid test, not only for the Government, but for my own Front Bench.
I was horrified that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) did not mention the question of pay, as the hon. Member for Fife, West pointed out. My right hon. Friend may not have read the Bill, but he must have read in the newspapers that the question of pay has been omitted from it. What is perfectly clear is that no second Chamber such as was proposed in the White Paper could conceivably work without pay. That is what both Front Benches are quite rightly agreed upon.
I think that they were absolutely wrong to agree on any such House, but how could such a House conceivably work without pay? In such a House there would be only rich men, because nobody else could afford to go there, and I do not think that rich men would be what have been described as captive balloons. The possibilities of patronage if there were a paid second Chamber are enormous.
It is argued that Prime Ministers can create all the peers they like even now. Of course they can, but those peers are not paid. The title is not something which excites people very much. It has suffered terribly from inflation. In the old days the expression "drunk as a lord" denoted power and affluence. "Drunk as a life peeress" means absolutely nothing. They may have permissive cocoa parties in the House of Lords. I have no doubt that if they do the Home Secretary attends

them. But it does not mean anything nowadays.
What means something nowadays is money. This thing cannot be run without money. I have no doubt that this is why the Liberal Party, which I am very glad to see represented here today, is greatly in favour of this proposal. I have no doubt that the reason so few Liberal Members have been here is that they have been trying to persuade the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) not to oppose the Bill. As has been pointed out, the only paid patronage that the Leader of the Liberal Party and his Chief Whip will have if the Bill goes through is to send themselves to the other place. They may all lose their seats next time, and then they can look forward to carousing in another place, well paid, to the age of 72 or to the end of the world, whichever comes first. With our present Minister of Defence, it may well be the latter.
The point is that this proposal cannot be worked. Everybody knows that the Government intend to bring in pay. I want them to deny this as often as possible. Three times before the cock crows is not enough. That is common form now, and I should like them to deny it many more times. Any denial by the Prime Minister is valueless. We must get the Government either to come out into the open and say "We must pay them. We said so in the debate on the White Paper and in the White Paper. We know that it is essential to our scheme, and we will do it", or deny it again and again, for they know what they will do and everybody else knows it.

Mr. W. Howie: I agree with the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) that if we have a second Chamber it must be paid or it will not work. I also think that if we are to have a second Chamber it must be nominated.
I was sad to hear the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggest that the method of remuneration should be expenses. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) rightly exposed the evils of expenses, and I agree with him entirely. That is why I have said in my proposed new Clause 18 that Members of the House of Lords should be


entitled to receive a salary. I have purposely left it rather vague because, unlike the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, I do regard it as our job not to draft Bills but merely to suggest principles to the Government which they and their paid employees can deal with.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry that to some extent the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend misunderstood the effect of my Amendment. Its purpose, and, I think, its effect, is simply to preserve the present position in respect of remuneration of both peers generally and peers who are Ministers so as to be able to test the soundness or otherwise of the Prime Minister's proposal that there should be a pause before a salary was instituted. All my Amendment would do would be to preserve the status quo for five years.

Mr. Howie: I hope I did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment involved a change. If I gave that impression, the fault was mine and not his.
I am surprised that there is opposition in the House and, I am told, in the Parliamentary Labour Party to the idea of of salaries. After all, there is a basic Socialist principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire. The capitalists opposite could support the idea of salaries on the well-known capitalist principle that everything has its value, and the Liberals could support it on Liberal principles in general.
I have suggested in my new Clause that the salary should be based on attendance. I am not quite sure at this stage whether I mean daily, weekly, or sessional attendance. In a sense, when the Government put forward the idea of salary or remuneration they were thinking in terms of a person being entitled to pay of some kind if he attended for a third of the time. I do not know whether a third is the right test, but the salary should be associated with some kind of attendance. If a peer were appointed and did not turn up, his salary would reasonably be forfeit.
In suggesting a salary, we face a problem in determining the amount and who should determine that amount. I have suggested a committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor. My idea arose from the suggestion of my hon. Friend the

Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) the other day that there were perhaps three Ministers who were in favour of the Bill.

An Hon. Member: Two.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Howie: There was a small number of Ministers in favour, and it occurred to me that the Lord Chancellor was possibly the likeliest of all to be in favour, and, therefore, an appropriate man to be in charge of the committee.
The idea of remuneration was first put forward by the Government in paragraph 52 of the White Paper, which stated properly and openly that:
… voting peers should in future receive some remuneration … which would reflect the responsibilities and duties which they would be expected to undertake.
That is an unexceptionable and supportable idea, and that is why I am amazed that the Government withdrew it between the publication of the White Paper and the introduction of the Bill. If they have a fault it is that they are sometimes a little inclined to yield to clamour, especially if the clamour happens to be wrong. An example that leaps to mind is that the Government referred the increases in prices of electricity and so on to the Prices and Incomes Board as a reaction to mistaken clamour. That was quite wrong. They have done so again over salaries for peers because there was a great fuss in Parliament. They gave up the ghost without making much of an argument about it. This is where the importance of this batch of Amendments lies. The Government must state their intensions about the future remuneration, expenses, or whatever it is to be, of Members of the House of Lords, and they should do something which I do not recall my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister doing in his speech, which is to give reasons for the change between the White Paper and the Bill.
In support of the idea of a salaried membership of the House of Lords, I return to the idea of patronage. As many hon. Members know, I approve of it; I have already said so. I do not think that it is quite so terrible as hon. Members say, and they are really over-stating their objections brutally. I have never noticed that hon. Members rush to turn down patronage. It is a legitimate ambition for hon. Members on both sides to try to


get on to the Front Bench. They are all ambitious to receive such patronage, which involves responsibilities and duties, and they always accept the pay that goes with it. If they are prepared to accept the patronage of jobs on the Treasury Bench as they are entitled to do, I see no reason why they should object to the Lords receiving pay for accepting responsibilities. Am I not right in suggesting that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was wrong to comment that the Government hold in their gift less than half the items of patronage—if that is the right phrase—in this package?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer is "No", because the Government have the right under the proposals not only to create life peers in larger numbers than the other two parties combined but to appoint the cross-bench peers.

Mr. Howie: I cannot feel that the Government can in the end appoint the cross-bench peers off their own bat. I cannot help feeling that if there is anything in the cross-bench notion the cross-benchers will be appointed by a committee, like that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to the responsibilities which go with the patronage accorded to those elevated to the Treasury Bench. Has he reflected on the contrast with the nominees in the other Chamber, whose sole responsibility under this scheme would be to attend and vote straight in order to make the scheme work?

Mr. Howie: I am not sure that it would happen quite like that. Surely, in the realities of political life the back benchers of the House of Lords would be not unlike the back benchers here, apart from two substantial differences—namely, that a back bencher in the other place does not have constituency duties and that he is not under the same kind of recurrent danger in which we find ourselves. It may be that hon. Members regard these as overwhelming differences but I am not sure. We already have examples of back-bencher Lords to look at, and they do not quite behave in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman suggests. But I am a little unhappy

about his intervention because it is having the unfortunate effect of pushing me towards supporting the Bill. I hope that he will desist from that unhappy course.
We accept patronage in many directions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West has already spoken of the wide range which exists in public life, much of it very well paid. I understand that some of the beneficiaries are at this moment agitating for substantial rises and we have been told in an intervention that they are to get them. Patronage has wafted people from here to jobs on the National Coal Board, in television and on electricity boards and to many other activities. They are all beneficiaries of straight patronage, are doing public work and are paid to do it. But who can argue that Lord Robens, for example, a beneficiary of patronage and well paid, is the creature of the Minister of Power? Of course no one can. So the argument becomes weak and diminishes when examples are looked at. If we can accept that kind of thing in public life, I see no reason why we should not pay the Lords as well.
An additional advantage which appeals to me is that if Members of the House of Lords are paid an appropriate salary we can then apply to them the same rules concerning offices of profit under the Crown as we experience. This would have the great advantage of removing most, if not all, the cross benchers, which would meet with considerable approval on this side. But that would be an ancillary effect.
On this crucial part of the Bill, it is time for the Opposition Front Bench to declare itself. In recent weeks, the Leader of the Opposition has made a number of keynote pronouncements on immigration—perhaps I should say, "colour"—on hanging and on crime, very often approaching the position taken by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It seems that, each time a bandwagon rolls by, the Leader of the Opposition leaps smartly aboard. I think that there is a bandwagon rolling at the moment in connection with this Bill and, significantly, it is being propelled hard by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. For that reason, if for no other, the Opposition Front Bench should declare itself.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I did declare myself on Second Reading, when I said that if people are doing a job they should be paid for it.

Mr. Howie: I am delighted to hear it but I go on from there to reflect on something else which the right hon. Gentleman said:
I agree with this scheme for an agreed reform of the upper Chamber. I shall continue to support the proposals unless anyone can put forward arguments to convince me that they are wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 402.]
That is an excellent proposition and compares well with a number of pronouncements that the right hon. Gentleman has made. But, unfortunately, he is never here to listen to the arguments; so whether they are right or wrong he is not in a position to decide when Divisions occur. But from his intervention I expect that he will make a statement during this debate on a crucial part of the Bill and will presumably dissent from the Government. As the Government are not saying that the Members of the House of Lords should be paid, and he suggests that they should be, presumably he agrees with me on that point. At any rate, there is sufficient confusion in my mind about his position to make it plain that he should rise during this debate to clear the matter up if only for my benefit. I am sure that other hon. Members would like their doubts and confusions cleared up as well.
I suspect that the Opposition Front Bench is becoming less and less enthusiastic in its adherence to the Bill. It is extraordinary that on a big constitutional issue like this we have had a series of debates without speeches giving a point of view from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not know when this last happened. It must be a considerable time ago. Even in our debates on Private Members' Bills on Fridays, the Opposition Front Bench makes some sort of declaration of position or intent. It seems extraordinary that in debate after debate on this Bill we should go without comment from the Opposition Front Bench. It is totally wrong.
It makes me wonder whether the Opposition Front Bench is not trying gracefully to glide away from the position of support which it took up at one time. If I were on the Treasury Bench, I should

say to the Opposition Front Bench, "Speak up in our defence on our agreement,"—or convention, or pact, or understanding, or whatever it is which lies behind the Preamble.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the new Clause.

Mr. Howie: I am sorry, Mr. Irving, but I was under the impression that I was doing so. I was asking the Opposition Front Bench, first, to agree with my new Clause, which I thought it was doing, and, secondly, if it disagrees, to make a statement in this debate. If the Opposition Front Bench feels unable to make a declaration of position, then the Government would be well advised to withdraw the Bill and bring in a much simpler Measure which we could all agree to.
Earlier in the Committee stage we found that the number of Members of the House of Lords would not be contained in the Bill but seemed to be hinted at in the Preamble and to be fixed in the agreement. In the same way, I suspect that the treatment of the Members of the House of Lords in future—whether they receive a salary or expenses at the present or a different level—is also embalmed in the agreement. I hope that it is. But it would be better to have figures relating to remuneration written into the Bill. I hope that the Government will consider this matter closely and bring forward an Amendment on Report bringing the whole question of remuneration into the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Powell: The group of Amendments which the Committee is discussing—that moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), the Amendment to the Schedule in the name of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—all have one effect, and probably one purpose. It is to nail to the counter a particularly squalid, though characteristic, manoeuvre of the Government. Fortunately, the manoeuvre has been as transparent as it is squalid, and is unlikely to deceive any but hon. Members who have shut their ears to what


has been going on in the Committee or who, alternatively, are on the payroll vote.
It is painfully necessary to trace in some little detail the history of the manoeuvre. It starts, as a number of hon. Members said, with the White Paper, which, one would have thought, made clear the position at which the Government had arrived, not only after their own considerations of many months, but also after the proceedings of the joint discussion between the parties. That said quite flatly in paragraph 52:
The Government … proposes that voting peers should in future receive some remuneration … which would reflect the responsibilities and duties which they would be expected to undertake.
There was no qualification or prevarication there, and there is no doubt about what "in future" means. It means under the new scheme. It does not mean at some indefinite future time. When the White Paper went on to say that
the question should be referred to an independent body … similar to the Lawrence Committee
quite clearly in that context it did not mean the question whether or not there should be remuneration. That was already settled. It meant what the remuneration should be, the form which it should take and so on, as indeed it is not the function of the Lawrence Committee to say whether Ministers and Members should be remunerated but to advise on how they should be remunerated.
At that stage there was no doubt whatever about the policy of the Government. Then we had the two-day debate upon the White Paper, as a result of which it was approved. The Secretary of State for Social Security in introducing the White Paper was absolutely unambiguous. He said:
The principle of remuneration is in the White Paper and I should have thought that no hon. Member could say 'No' to that principle.
Since then a good many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said "No" in no uncertain terms to that principle, but there is no doubt where the right hon. Gentleman stood. He said:
The principle of remuneration is in the White Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1138.]

He went on to say it was his conviction that
tax-free expenses were totally inadequate it a lack of means was not to become an effective bar to membership of the reformed House.
In the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, whom many regard as one of the principal progenitors of this scheme, there would be
an effective bar to membership of the reformed House 
unless there were not just payment of expenses but remuneration.
On the next day of that debate the Attorney-General reinforced, restated, the same proposition. He said:
… it would be intolerable, if because of inadequate means, men and women otherwise admirably suited to serve in another place were prevented by poverty and lack of means from doing so. … As yet the method of payment is undetermined, as is the amount."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1315.]
That there should be remuneration was in no way in doubt at that stage. It was in no way in doubt when in November the House approved the White Paper. Then two and a half months passed, and what had been the principle propounded by the Government to the House, what had been essential if there was to be
no effective bar to membership of the reformed Chamber",
what was necessary to avoid what the Attorney-General regarded as an "intolerable" situation, had virtually disappeared. It had evaporated into a kind of vagueness, masterfully put forward by the Prime Minister.
In the course of his references to remuneration the right hon. Gentleman covered the whole spectrum, from enthusiatic recommendation and restatement of the argument for remuneration to the most distant scepticism about it. He put quite clearly the grounds on which the White Paper and speakers in the debate on the White Paper had argued for the necessity of remuneration. Then he went on and referred to the anxieties of hon. Members about patronage. After a certain vagueness on that subject he continued:
In the light of these considerations which I think ought to have more thought given to them the Government have decided not to pursue the White Paper proposals about payment.


More definitely still in the next sentence he said:
… there will be no salary …
We appeared to have travelled the whole distance, from the initial affirmation of the grounds for a salary to a firm statement that there was to be no salary.
But the Prime Minister did not stop there. The pendulum did not remain in that position; it started to swing back again. The right hon. Gentleman continued that they were to see
how the reformed House worked in practice ",
in circumstances in which they had already said it could not work, in which they had already said there would be
an effective bar to membership of the reformed House
which they envisaged. Then they were
to form a considered view of the broader issues involved".
The Prime Minister came to rest in this sort of central position:
This docs not mean that we have decided that voting members should not be paid at some time in the future, or that they should.
The pendulum was exactly in the middle. He then finished up by saying:
All I am saying this afternoon is that so far as their Lordships' House is concerned the proposal in the White Paper for payment is not being proceeded with for the time being.
The Home Secretary in winding up the Second Reading debate that night was a little more precise by what he meant by "the time being." He said that it would not be
… in the course of this Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 54–167.]
Thus, on Second Reading after two and a half months, the Prime Minister was prevaricating, neither saying that there would be remuneration nor saying that there would not be remuneration, but only pointing out what we had all discovered for ourselves, that there was no reference to remuneration in the Bill. Everyone knows why this had happened. It had happened because of the grave exception taken on both sides of the House, in the strongest terms, to some of the consequences of remuneration. To attempt to meet those objections simply by not putting remuneration in the Bill is dishonest.
One could meet those objections in one of two ways. One could argue them

down. The Government could come to the House and say: "We have considered the doubts, fears and anxieties of hon. Members, but nevertheless we still persist in the view which stood in the White Paper that remuneration is necessary, and that it is right, and we have, therefore, included it in the Bill." That would have been one manly and honourable course. The alternative would have been to say, again quite frankly: "We have considered the fears and objections, we have reconsidered the practicability of having this kind of Chamber without remuneration, and, therefore, we will set up this Chamber without remuneration, in the belief that it will, contrary to our previous opinion, nevertheless work."
The Government took neither of those courses. They just left it open, on the basis that if they could get the Bill through without anyone being able to point to remuneration in the Bill itself, then, sure enough, afterwards, when this House had lost whatever power we have to insist and to argue if necessary for hour after hour, they could come forward and say, "Of course, everybody knows it is necessary for the new Chamber to be paid. Did not we say so in the White Paper?" Then, in a single afternoon, in one sitting of the House, if that—and that depends on the outcome of the debate between my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary—but in any case with no more than a single debate and almost as a foregone conclusion, with everybody bored with the whole thing, this all-important matter which has caused such deep anxieties would be through.
Evidently the Home Secretary expects that this office will be performed by the incoming Administration, whatever that may be. If some cataclysm should happen in what seem to be the settled preferences of the electorate and the present Government should still find themselves after the next election on that Treasury Bench, who is going to argue about it then, when the new Chamber is in existence? Surely, we shall have to give them the salary which, after all, was held out to them when the scheme was prepared? Alternatively, if there is a change in the parties, right hon. Gentlemen opposite will themselves be free to use all the arguments, all the criticisms, which will be available on the pages of HANSARD for the Session 1968–69 and leave it to


my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to perform what so many hon. Members of this House regard as the dirty work.
It is not as though there has been a genuine change of mind. There has been a mere manoeuvre of a character both transparent and squalid. Indeed, what is particularly insulting about the manoeuvre is that no special care has been taken to cover it up. It is so blatant. In the Prime Minister's words there is virtually an admission of what is going on—getting the Bill through and stuffing in remuneration afterwards.
A good deal has been heard in the course of the debate about a bargain—it is sometimes called an understanding—between those who were engaged in the discussions. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has said to his hon. Friends—I was going to call them his supporters—"We have got something we wanted out of those talks, and the other parties to the talks have something they wanted. The result has been a bargain, and there is something in a bargain for everybody. It is the bargain which is laid down in the White Paper."
Is remuneration part of the bargain or not? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is to help us over this; but it is a matter of no small importance and I imagine it will be a matter of no small importance when, which may the gods avert, this Bill gets to another place. Let me put the verb in the conditional mood, a very conditional mood: it would be. But even now noble Lords in another place, the party managers in another place, the managers for the two parties, are surely entitled to be told on what basis we are proceeding; for their view—and it was what they held out to those who voted for the White Paper in another place; it was part of the ground on which they carried their supporters with them in another place—was that there was to be remuneration, and adequate remuneration, for the working and voting peers in the new reformed Chamber.
8.15 p.m.
Are we then leaving out of the Bill and out of the Preamble to the Bill something which was an integral part of the agreement?

Perhaps we shall be told that it was not in the agreement, and that there was no mention of remuneration in the discussions. If so, that will be important. If so, we shall understand that this was something which the Government put into the White Paper of their own volition after the discussions were concluded. But if remuneration was part of the agreed scheme and was part of the bargain, then what right have the Government to produce a Bill which does not embody, which studiously avoids, that element in the agreed scheme and not merely to say, "Oh but that will be done later. We are not twisting anybody. Though it is not in the Bill, it will be done later", but to say, "We are going to see. Maybe they will be paid; maybe they will not be paid"? What a splendid way to honour a bargain, if bargain it was! And if bargain it was not, if this was not part of the understanding but was something of the Government's own volition, then I am sure it will be to the satisfaction of hon. Members, particularly on the other side of the House, to know that their own Government added this of their own generosity, as a work of supererogation, to the agreement which they had already obtained in the discussions. So, one way or another, it is a pretty disgraceful manœuvre.
Much has been said, and much I am sure will be said, in this debate about the patronage which is involved in paid nominees up to retirement age. The Government have sought to argue that this patronage is not very different in kind or in extent from the patronage which has been exercised by Administrations from time immemorial in recommending additions to the peerage. This is a complete misconception. I hope the Home Secretary is going to show that he has understood that that argument simply does not stand up to examination. It is one thing, in the first place, to make additions to the present Chamber, according to the table on page 5 of the White Paper, of 1,062 Members. It is one thing by the exercise of patronage to add 5, 15 or 50 Members to a Chamber of 1,062. It is quite different to exercise the patronage to add Members to a Chamber so reduced in size and so balanced that the voting outcome is intended to be predictable one way or the


other, a Chamber initially of 230 Members.
It is, moreover, something quite different to make an addition, and an unpaid addition, to an unpaid Chamber of over 1,000 Members and to make a salaried addition to a Chamber of 200 or 300 Members. There is, of course, no actual limit under this Bill, or even under the Preamble to the Bill, on the total numbers which the Government can make and many of us suppose—and we regard it as one of the many weaknesses and absurdities of the scheme—that the Government will constantly be obliged to top up membership of another place as they find that the delicate balance is disturbed either by mortality or by that change of mind which can come over Members when they move from one place to another.
Therefore, we are giving the Government an entirely new kind of patronage, a patronage which enables them to influence the effective composition of a relatively small chamber so as to make it subservient to their will by that act of patronage and to exercise a patronage which confers on the recipient a substantial and secure income up to retirement age.
I have heard the point—I think it has been urged more than once in previous debates—that we, too, in this House are in receipt of a salary and that the right hon. and hon. occupants of the Treasury Bench are in receipt of salaries, whether or not those salaries, in the memorable words of the White Paper,
reflect the responsibilities and duties which they are expected to undertake".
But there are checks upon hon. Members in this House, whether they be official or unofficial Members. We are here in a certain setting. We are here in terms of responsibility, for which they are called to account initially in the House, and for which we are all called to account elsewhere. There is no analogy between the patronage conferred on occupants of the Treasury Bench or the salary drawn by hon. Members, and the patronage and salary which would be conferred on the permanent members of this small, adjusted chamber of nominees. It is that contrast which provokes the indignation—I believe that is not too high a term—of many hon. Members on both sides.
So we are brought at the end of our reflections on this group of Amendments, as we think them through, to the same central point, the same central absurdity. The Government set out to do something which is inherently a conundrum: to form a chamber which would do two contradictory things, which would be independent and subservient. One of the consequences of that root absurdity in which they entangle themselves is the necessity for patronage, for payment, which for one reason or another, but still by common consent, is a smoke in the nose of so many hon. Members.
By this approach, as by so many before and, I am sure, so many to come, the Government are yet again convicted of the inherent absurdity of this scheme. Once again it is dissolved by laughter.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order. I wonder whether you could help me, Mr. Irving. I notice that your selection of the Amendments which we are discussing includes Amendment No. 105. I have been through my Amendment Paper once or twice and I have failed to find Amendment No. 105. I should be grateful if you could explain the matter.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Further to that point of order. I have been through the same exercise and endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said. It applies likewise to Amendment No. 79.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): I think that Amendment No. 79 is on the Amendment Paper. May I deal with the point concerning Amendment No. 105? It is not an infrequent practice of the Chair to found a debate on an Amendment and to add an Amendment which stands in an earlier position on the Amendment Paper. It is also the practice, when the earlier Amendment is overtaken by the debate, to take it off the Amendment Paper. That is what has happened with Amendment No. 105. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Amendment No. 105 was not selected for a Division, so that much he has not lost. But the debate on the Amendments is wide enough to allow the hon. Gentleman to say anything that he wished to say on Amendment No. 105.

Mr. Onslow: Further to the point of order. I am grateful for your explanation, Mr. Irving, which does not make me very much the wiser, because I fail to see the purpose of including the Amendment. But since there must be a purpose, although it escapes me for the moment, would you remind us of what Amendment No. 105 says and in whose name it stood?

Mr. Callaghan: If I may be of assistance, my information is that Amendment No. 105 was in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and read:
Clause 2, page 2, line 41, after 'members' insert 'receiving no remuneration in this capacity'.
I do not know what has happened to the Amendment, but that is what it said when it was originally on the Amendment Paper.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of Order. With reference to your selection, Mr. Irving, and the very convenient practice of circulating the list, I notice that none of the Amendments to be taken with Amendment No. 66 is specifically marked as being for a Division. Am I to understand that you have selected none for Division only?

The Chairman: If I take the right hon. Gentleman's point correctly, the answer is that I have not selected any for a Division which are not marked for Division. The Amendment on which the debate is based—in other words, the first on the selection paper—is automatically for a Division. Unless indicated, the other Amendments are not for Division.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I therefore take it that you have not selected any Amendments for Division only.

The Chairman: That is correct.

[Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: We have had quite an interesting debate. Time is a subjective matter, I understand, and we can all have our views about the length of time spent on these debates. But it is clear that there is a division of opinion about remuneration. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)

is against any payment. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) is in favour of payment. I imagine that there are others—we have heard them today—who would not take one side or the other in this controversy.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose——

Mr. Callaghan: I have only just started.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman may have only just started, but he has misrepresented me already. The effect of my Amendment is not that I am against payment altogether, but that I am against it for five years for the reasons given by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman's reasons must be his own, but the Amendment states:
No payment shall be made from public funds … during a period of five years …
That wording is opposed to the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, who wishes payment to be made now and believes that the Lord Chancellor should be brought into the determination of it. I therefore do not think that I am misrepresenting the right hon. Member. He does not want payment made——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For five years.

Mr. Callaghan: He hitches that payment to five years because he wants to attribute it in some way to the Prime Minister.
With all respect to hon. and right hon. Members, I do not think that we have heard anything very new in this debate. Certainly none of the adjectives used by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was new. They were those that we have got used to hearing in a characteristic speech—"squalid", "transparent", "insulting", "disgraceful", "absurd", "indignant". He must, of course, bring in a reference to honour. If one then mixes them all up one has the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman this evening—a speech of the same kind that we have had on many occasions, and the effect is the less the more those adjectives are repeated.
I therefore beg the right hon. Gentleman to try to attribute proper motives in


those who may have come to different conclusions from his, instead of adopting that superior pose which is getting a little——

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Sir B. Rhys Williams rose——

Mr. Callaghan: No, I shall not give way. I am not addressing myself to the hon. Member but to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who said that he first thought of speaking of "supporters" of the Government but withdrew that description and referred to "friends". I certainly call them my hon. Friends—we are hon. Friends. I know that the Leader of the Opposition would not call the right hon. Gentleman a supporter, and I very much wonder whether he would call him an hon. Friend either. The reverse would certainly not be true. I know that the right hon. Gentleman over-emphasises his case for dramatic effect and it thus serves a useful purpose, but if he persists in banging the big drum all the time the effect is lost because in the end the hearers are deafened and the right hon. Gentleman's arguments are not accepted by those to whom they are addressed, which is a great pity, because some of them are of some value.
We are now dealing with the subject of payment. We are not arguing the whole question of the Bill, although it is possible for skilled Parliamentarians to keep in order and argue the whole question of the Bill on almost every Amendment. I have watched with admiration the way this is done, but I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not engage in that exercise but stick to the Amendment. Unfashionable though that may be, and unpopular though it may be, it may nevertheless be worth it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames wishes to write into the Bill a provision that there shall be no payment from public funds for a period of five years. This has not been done before in relation to all the changes that have been made. I suppose that technically, and purely technically, the right hon. Gentleman could be right in saying that this could be paid out of the Civil Estimates without a Resolution of the House, but this has not been done. There has always been a Resolution of the House. For example, in 1911 there was a Resolution of the House followed by a Supplementary Estimate. In 1937

there was a Resolution of the House before the money was put into the Estimates. In 1946 there was a Resolution of the House followed by an Estimate, and in 1957 and in 1964 the practice was the same.
It may suit some hon. Members opposite to pretend that all the conventions are being broken. I have insisted before in this Committee that a great deal of our working in the House of Commons—and I think that, in other moods, even the opponents of the Bill would concede this—depends on the acceptance of certain conventions. It would not be possible to make this Chamber work unless those conventions were observed, and if we were not arguing this Bill but debating a different matter I fancy that on this I would carry the agreement of many hon. Members opposite. It may suit their argument this evening, and on other occasions, to assume that the Government of the day intend to break all the conventions, as the right hon. Gentleman said. But, even when the right hon. Gentleman says that, he must not expect it to carry conviction with me or expect me to take it seriously. What I say to him, as I have on previous occasions, is that if the normal conventions continue to be observed in this Chamber a Resolution of either House or both Houses—it would depend on the character of the occasion—would, I think, precede a Supplementary Estimate. Therefore, whilst the right hon. Gentleman may be technically correct, there would be no precedent for what he suggests might be done.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does what the Home Secretary says amount to an undertaking on behalf of the Government that there could be no question of payment without the Government, as a matter of policy, introducing a Resolution in this House?

Mr. Callaghan: Most certainly. I would not have assumed that the right hon. Gentleman thought anything else. If there has been a Resolution on every previous occasion, I cannot imagine that even his Government, if we had that misfortune, would ever introduce remuneration for the other place without a Resolution. Certainly, this Government would not do it, and I hope that the Opposition would not do it, either.
I agree that the only time when we came near it, as one might expect, was under a Tory Government in 1954. However, there were special circumstances in that case, and I should not query what they did since they were at the time not increasing remuneration but were proposing a Sessional allowance, as some hon. Members who were in the House at that time will recall. It was during the tenure of office of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. That matter had a different quality, since it was a Sessional allowance, and I make no point about it. In every other case, it has always been done by Resolution. Therefore, we must have better arguments than have been put forward this evening for writing such a matter as this into a Bill, when it has worked perfectly satisfactorily without it on previous occasions.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that the House of Commons will have lost its power. He is not accurate in that, is he? The House of Commons will have complete power to turn down such a Resolution. It would not be without precedent for it to do so and for the matter to come back later before the House.

Mr. Powell: My point is that the other Chamber will have been set up and it will then be possible for the Government to say to this House, "The Chamber is in existence, so that now, in effect, you have no choice but to pass the Resolution giving it what we previously argued was essential". It is in that sense we shall have parted with the main decision. That was my point.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is sliding on to a different point. That is not what he said. He said that the House of Commons will have lost its power to argue for hour after hour. What he is referring to now is the argument which might be put forward by a Government in support of a particular decision, but what he said in his earlier speech was that the House of Commons would have no power to stop it, that it would have lost the power to argue hour after hour. He is not accurate in that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton referred to Lord Robens and asked whether it was suggested that Lord Robens was the creature of the Minister of Power.

I suspect that the answer which he meant us to infer is that Lord Robens is not the creature of the Minister of Power, and I dare say that that will be accepted both by Ministers of Power and, certainly, by Lord Robens. But I point out the difference. Lord Robens can be removed by the Minister of Power at the end of his term of office. No peer can be removed.
If someone who can be removed is independent in his approach, why should it be assumed that someone who is not dependent on patronage any more, who has his place—as has been said in another argument—until the age of 72 must be dependent and subservient? I do not accept the conundrum posed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West when he says that it is not possible to be both independent and subservient. Of course it is. If the lines of demarcation are clearly laid down, it is possible to be both. I could give a dozen illustrations from our workaday life where that is true. The right hon. Gentleman's conundrum is not correct in this matter. It is quite possible for those in the House of Lords who are there permanently, who cannot be removed by the Prime Minister, to be independent.
I could see the argument if they could be removed by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition at the end of a Parliament, as we have seen discussed in some of the journals which consider these matters. Then one could argue fairly that such a person was a subservient creature who could not be independent. But I do not see how one can use that argument about someone who, once translated to his position, is as free and independent as anyone can possibly be because he is dependent on no one for his position once he has got it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the Government can guarantee their 10 per cent. majority in the other place?

Mr. Callaghan: The Government cannot guarantee anything in this matter. However, except among the extreme element in the Conservative Party and some of my very independent-minded Friends in the Government party, a Government can on the whole rely on their supporters to support them. That may be an odd proposition to most who are engaged in this debate. It would be astonishing if


the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West were ever to support his party on anything, but he must not assume that, because he takes that view, everyone else takes it.
Therefore while I readily accept that there is nothing to guarantee any Government a majority, on the whole people who come here to support the Government of the day, or the Opposition of the day, usually support them—an odd proposition, but nevertheless true. I never get it out of my mind in the course of these debates, and I say this without offence to those who do all the speaking in them, that when the votes come to be counted, they never carry the majority with them, but are always in a very small minority. They should not confuse their articulateness with their numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is looking very bellicose. I have not said anything which should offend him so far, and the last time I paid a great compliment to his independent mindedness. I hope that he is not searching for further compliments.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is it not a very different matter if a man is nominated as a supporter of the Government and accepts that nomination and the salary that goes with it? At that point, it he wishes to stop supporting the Government on any issue, he must resign; it would be dishonourable if he did not.

Mr. Callaghan: These questions of honour and dishonour are interpreted differently. I fully accept that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West can never speak of the Government without using the word "dishonour" in every other sentence, and it has become a fetish which is getting rather boring. It is entirely a matter for the individual. No one can guarantee this. Although many aspersions have been cast against hon. Members on either side of the Committee, most people come here with fixed convictions. They have chosen their party and thrown in their lot with the party which they have chosen, believing that it most nearly represents what they want to do. I do not think that people change their convictions too easily, and, although it would be astonishing if from time to time hon. Members did not disagree

with the Government, I do not find that dishonourable, any more than I find it dishonourable to vote for the Government of which I am a member.
I must say—and I feel a little strongly about this—that the term "pay roll vote" has been carried too far. It is an insulting term in one sense, because it assumes that one is ready to vote only because one is on the payroll of the Government. I do not wish to be priggish, but I think that that lowers the standing of Ministers in the eyes of the public and by so doing it creates a threat to the standing of the democratic system in this sense. I wish that the term had not been invented. That is my own view and other hon. Members may have different views and I may be entirely wrong.

Mr. Michael Foot: I agree.

Mr. Callaghan: I have at any rate one supporter.
I reiterate very strongly that although we can have a certain amount of fun about this, we cannot make the democratic system work without a party system in the House of Commons. Those who attack the system in that sense do a disservice. However, I leave it at that and I come to the final question which I was asked and which was why we had changed our minds.
I must confess to an intense disappointment. I hoped that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would come to the Chamber today to present bouquets to the Government. I thought that the Government would be the recipients of compliments from Kingston-upon-Thames to Ebbw Vale. I knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale wanted to help the progress of the Bill and I assumed that that was why he had allowed me to speak, because I had put his case so well that he need not speak himself. I thought that we would be the recipients of compliments from every quarter of the Chamber.

Mr. Michael Foot: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not suggesting that there is any possible device by which I can be stopped from speaking. If he is, we shall take a very different attitude. I hope that I can have a clear assurance from my right hon. Friend not merely


that I shall be able to state my view on the Clause, but that he will be here to see whether I support him.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: In a quarter of a century's acquaintance and I hope friendship with my hon. Friend I have never been able to prevent him from speaking on anything, even though he and I usually disagree about the subject matter. As to his speeches this evening, as he knows, that is not matter for me. That is a matter entirely for the Chair, and I would not dream of infringing on the prerogative of the Chair. I cannot undertake to be here when my hon. Friend speaks—although I always enjoy his speeches—because I very much doubt whether I shall hear many new arguments, since they have all been exhausted already on this Amendment.

Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to assure my right hon. Friend that some of us consider this matter to be of fundamental importance to the Bill. The question of pay is central to the Bill, and we think that there must be the fullest discussion on it, because of the changes and also because of a matter which has not so far been mentioned in the debate but which I hope to develop more fully later, that we who happen to be supporting the Amendment are supporting the policy on this subject which the Labour Party held to right up to the time when the Government changed their mind. That is a reputable case which should be put by Labour Members who hold to the views for which my right hon. Friend voted 10 years ago.

Mr. Callaghan: But my hon. Friend's case has already been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) with great force and power and, I promise him, I listened to every word of it. What is the difference between us? He says that he does not want payment for Members. I have come down to explain that the Government do not propose to introduce payment for Members. This is why I expected the compliments; this is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to the House to do.

An Hon. Member: Why not accept the Amendment?

Mr. Callaghan: For the reason which I have already given, namely, that it is always done by Resolution. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to the House to say that we did not intend to go ahead with this matter at this moment, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and I, by different approaches, are arriving at the same conclusion. What he is troubled about is basically not that we are not going ahead with the pay; he regrets very much that we are not going ahead with the pay because we have destroyed his grievance against us. That is what he is troubled about, and that is why no doubt we shall be favoured later on with a speech from him.
I was asked several times what had led the Government to change their mind on this issue. The answer is that we listened to the arguments in the Chamber, and the view was expressed on all hands that hon. Members did not like payment. It would be a novel doctrine, though I have become used to listening to novel doctrines from this Wolverhampton-Ebbw Vale axis, that the Government should not listen to the arguments which are put forward. The Government found that this proposition did not find favour and the Government, therefore, are not proposing to proceed with it at this time.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose——

Mr. Callaghan: I have been trying to sit down for the last 10 minutes.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend says that he has been listening to and adopting the views of the Chamber, would he not go a bit further and listen to all the views that are being adopted in the Chamber, and drop the Bill altogether?

Mr. Callaghan: The Government always listen to all the views, but may reach different conclusions. My hon. Friend says that we should listen to the views in the Chamber and drop the Bill, but every time we go to a Division the Government win by a substantial majority. He must not confuse minorities with majorities in the Chamber.
The position is that it will be for the next Government to consider and bring forward, if they feel it is right to do so, propositions concerning the pay of


another Chamber. No Parliament can bind its successors. I can, therefore, give no guarantees on this matter. It would be a strange constitutional doctrine if I did. The Government are not proposing to bring forward any Resolution on this matter. It will be for a future Government to consider what they should do and to bring forward proposals, if they decide it is right to do so. It will then be for the House of Commons to determine those proposals, as it has on previous occasions, sometimes accepting them and sometimes rejecting them, because we have always found that the House of Commons takes the closest interest in these matters.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames will not be surprised when I say that, in the light of the fact that he wishes me to break with precedent—and he, on the whole, would not want me to break with precedent, as he is a Conservative—I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment, and I ask my hon. Friends to defeat it.

Mr. Powell: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he tell the Committee whether remuneration was or was not part of the bargain?

Mr. Callaghan: If the right hon. Gentleman wants any information on that he should apply to his own Front Bench. I am willing to account to my hon. Friends on this matter and have always done so.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: If the Home Secretary is unaware of the difference of view between himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) he is the only Member in the Chamber who is unaware of the difference.
I am surprised at some of the arguments deployed by the right hon. Gentleman in replying to the debate. Surely inherent in the scheme is the intention to secure, concerning votes, a subservient second Chamber. It has been argued that whatever machinery is employed to achieve a subservient second Chamber, it cannot guarantee its subservience.
So far we have considered the principle of a nominated second Chamber and the difference in categories between voting and non-voting peers. Now we have super-added to this consideration

the principle of payment. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that this is not a vital matter in considering the desirability or otherwise of this scheme.
The other place has been dominated, for as long as anybody can remember, by the Tory Party. Even without the question of payment arising, it has always been able to secure the subservience of the other House to its views.
The last time the House of Lords threw out a major Conservative Measure was the Reform Bill of 1832. The Under-Secretary looks surprised. The House of Lords threw out the Reform Bill of 1832 and then, under pressure, subsequently passed it. It has yielded to pressure from the House of Commons, only when we have had other than a Conservative Government, under the threat of the creation of a sufficient number of peers to carry through any Measure that it had rejected.
It was thus that Asquith secured the compliance of the House of Lords eventually to the passing of the Parliament Act, 1911. It must be remembered that that was regarded as an interim Measure. The intention of the Liberal Government was to bring in a further Measure to secure an elected second Chamber. But the Bill goes further. It not only aims to have a subservient membership of the other House—that is, subservient to the will of this Chamber—it also intends to secure that subservience even further by ensuring payment.
I object not only to an entirely nominated Chamber, but to the principle of payment. We are concerned with something quite novel—the creation of a legislative Chamber that is to consist not only of nominated Members, but paid nominated Members. No one who has read the White Paper and the debates can doubt that this scheme is unworkable unless the voting peers are to be paid.
I think it was Lord Samuel who once said that the efficiency of the other place was secured largely by the permanent absenteeism of most of its Members, and that is true. What the Government are trying to ensure is that Members attend, at least the only Members who will count there, namely, the voting Members. They aim to secure their attendance by a scheme of payment, and it does not matter in the long run whether this is done by


a scheme initially of large expense allowances, eventually graduating to a salary scheme.
The effect of that on this Chamber will be very serious. One would have thought from the speeches, particularly from this side of the House by two of the Privy Councillors who have spoken, that their chief objective was to ensure that the Leader of the Liberal Party had no degree of power over patronage. It seems that the objection of the Tories is not so much to patronage, but to anybody other than themselves exercising it.
I object to patronage all round. I think it is objectionable that the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Liberal Party should enjoy this power of patronage, because one has to consider the possible effect of this on their parties. I entirely agree with the views of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) about the disagreeable effect that this might have in this House. People with narrow majorities will play up to their party leaders in the hope of eventual preferment.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. and learned Gentleman is in a much better position, because the Liberal Party is to have 15 nominations, but has only 12 Members in this House, whereas my right hon. Friend will have 80 nominations, with 250 Members here at present.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman must not despair. I understand his misgivings about this. He will need patronage some day, and I am sure that he will not be overlooked.
I think that the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) was concerned that the Leader of the Liberal Party should have some degree of power over patronage, but the right hon. Gentleman must not despair because he considers that after the next election he will be so much out of favour with his Leader that his chances of elevation will have gone completely.
It is arguable, but I do not share this view, that if we are to have partonage at all it is better exercised by three separate party leaders than by one. To that extent I suppose there is some argument,

if we are to have a nominated Chamber, that this should be the scheme.

Mr. Onslow: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that patronage becomes more tolerable if there are three snouts in the trough instead of one?

Mr. Hooson: I have made my position clear. I am opposed to patronage, but it is arguable, if we are to have a nominated Chamber, and if that Chamber is to be paid, that it is better that the patronage is shared among three party leaders rather than exercised entirely by one.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Fife, West. I do not think that it is possible to reform the Upper Chamber in any acceptable way. I should like to see it abolished. I strongly take the view that the functions of the present House of Lords could be as efficiently discharged if we had a refinement of the Committee system in this House. It is a great mistake to bring in a Bill of this kind which satisfies nobody. If it were possible to vote, I should support new Clause 8. I should prefer to support Amendment No. 66, rather than support the Government on this matter.
The only case for a paid Chamber was advanced by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). He put forward arguments in favour of a paid second Chamber with all the conviction of an ex-Government Whip. He realises that he has to secure a majority in the other place—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Member knows him better than I do. He is the only person in the Committee to put forward a case, which is the Government's case, as shown in the White Paper, for a paid second Chamber. This will increase the subservience even further. That is why any Amendment, whether that of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) or that of the hon. Member for Fife, West, would have my support in the Lobby.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: This, for me, is the crucial Amendment. I have said from the start that I would support the reform of the Lords provided that it was an unpaid Chamber. I found the Prime Minister's assurance unsatisfactory. The important question is: will this be a Chamber which, upon its formation, expects that,


in the not very distant future, the jobs which are being distributed will be paid, or is it to be a Chamber whose members take on the jobs strictly upon the basis that they are unpaid and that nothing beyond their expenses will be paid to them? That is the vital point.
It is no use saying that it must be done by Resolution. We want a Bill which decides one way or the other between a paid and an unpaid Chamber. Of course this is a sovereign Parliament and the Bill might be amended in future, but the Bill should require amendment and not a mere Resolution before people can be appointed to these offices and paid. This is the critical point of my opposition to the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that the eighteenth century was the great age of patronage. But I do not think that that century touches the present one. Look at the number of paid jobs both in the State Corporations and in the Government. There are 115 Ministers now—enough to make a Walpole's or a Newcastle's mouth water.
When my right hon. Friend says that we should not talk about a payroll vote and that it is an insult to members of the Government to say that they vote the way they do because they are members of the Government, he knows what nonsense he is talking as well as I do or anyone else does. When the payroll is called upstairs to pass a party resolution and put the Whips on, we know the people who will go there. We know what their reaction was before they were on the payroll and what it is afterwards. It is no use being hypocritical about this, because everyone of us knows it, including my right hon. Friend.
That is the sadness of this situation, because it applies not only to members of the Government: it is increasingly affecting Members of the House. This is the appalling increase in the power of the Prime Minister. Walpole tried to achieve a Parliament of placemen and failed, but where Walpole failed the modern Prime Minister has succeeded. He has created a situation in which membership of this House depends on membership of a party. Not one hon. Member is here on anything but a party interest, a party ticket. That party, the

Government party, is controlled by the Prime Minister. In fact this is an office-of-profit—membership of this House, carrying a salary and a standard of living which a great many Members of this House could not retain anywhere else. It would mean a very considerable change in their way of life and that of their wives and the people who are dependent upon them.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): I should be obliged if the hon. and learned Member would talk about the other place, and not about this place.

Mr. Paget: What I am saying, and I am sorry to get on to this point, is that the patronage to another place is one of the ways in which this House is corrupted. To my mind, that is one of the all-important things. One has the great difficulty of dependence on party, but at least if one is elected by a party to come here one has a certain range.
One can think "What do I owe to the people who elected me, and what do I owe to the Government?" This quite often is the conflict, whether it is my duty to be loyal to the party and to the policies on which I was elected, or to a Government which, in my view, is doing almost the opposite. I consider that that has happened under this Bill.
On the other hand, the man who is appointed to the House of Lords under this system has no ambiguity or discretion in his subservience at all. He is appointed by a Prime Minister as a supporter of the Government, and that is the implied condition of his salary. If a man accepts a salary as a supporter of the Government to support the Government in another place, he either does so or he retires, or he is a dishonest man.
This seems to me to be the appalling problem of a paid, nominee legislator. He has no constituency to look back to. He cannot look at one side and the other side and take his choice. He is alone in obligation, and this seems to me to be almost totally wrong.
This new addition, this formidable patronage which is added to the already enormous patronage of a Prime Minister, seems to me to be yet another method of corrupting this House. Already now we know very well that the prospect of going to another place is one of the awards of


good conduct here. It is a form of retirement, which is a very pleasant prospect for people like myself who are approaching the old-age pensioner range, particularly when they see, as I do, a short prospect of their constituency disappearing. Yet I do not think anybody is in any doubt that I would not have the opportunity to go to another place, because I have not conformed.

Mr. Callaghan: Oh.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that a ticket to the other place is one of the rewards of conformity in this House. When the other place becomes a paid job, how much more will that be so? My right hon. Friend wonders why I should feel that I have a right in this matter.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. and learned Friend misunderstands me, as does everybody else who takes this high moral line. Why does he think that the moral calibre of others is less strong than his own? I know that he has independent means. On the other hand, he has no right to claim, nor I think would he claim, that because of that his honour or sense of independence is any greater than that of those who have not had his natural advantages in life. It is this moral priggishness which I find intolerable.

Mr. Paget: On many occasions I have made it clear that the fact that one has independent means gives one an independence in this place, and I believe that it is quite wrong that this should be so.

Mr. Heffer: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that there are hon. Members like myself who have absolutely no independent means, who are entirely dependent on our salaries from this place, but who are as independent in the way we act as anybody else?

Mr. Paget: I admit immediately that it is far more credit to my hon. Friend to be independent than it is credit to me, for the very reason he mentioned. The trouble is that even in the House of Commons it is very much easier to be independent if one has means; and with the large number of hon. Members who do not have means, the inducement to lack independence becomes greater.
If a millionaire—and we get some extremely wealthy ones nowadays—were

looking for a foundation and really cared for Parliamentary institutions, the most valuable action he could take would be to provide a pension of perhaps £2,500 for every hon. Member upon retirement. Nothing would do more to provide an independence for Parliament. It would be of enormous value as long as it went to all hon. Members. In the meantime, to have independence rationed out by the Government to the conformists here is not good for Parliament.
It is nonsense to say that suitable men cannot be found to man another place. We are, after all, talking about a half-time retirement job for old men. That is what will be required of those who will man another place under this system. As my right hon. Friend knows, there are queues of people wanting a peerage from a Labour Government, mostly politically suitable men, and that was the case even before anybody proposed any sort of payment.
Although we are here thinking about a retirement job, we are not really thinking simply about those who have an old-age pension. But even if we were, expenses will be paid and a person would be no worse off in the Lords than he would be doing nothing. In practice, people with a pension—after 15 years' service in the House of Commons hon. Members receive, in addition to their old-age pension, some £900 a year; not a great deal but something extra—could do the work we have in mind in the other place, draw expenses and do a job in which they are interested. If they want to take on another job as well, there is no reason why they should not do so. Being a lord will not present any difficulty.
The only need for payment is to secure the necessary subservience; to make the patronage worth while for controlling this place and to win the subservience necessary to control the other place. To pay a nominated Chamber and then to ask it to act as a legislature is a vicious thing to do and something which we should not allow.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I was very offended by the Home Secretary's speech. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here to hear what I have to say,


which I shall in no way alter by reason of his absence. He was, first, extremely rude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams). The whole of the Home Secretary's speech was disingenuous and full of sophistry. His every word assumed that peers would, in fact, be paid.
The right hon. Gentleman said that these matters had always been dealt with by Resolution. He assumed that there would be such Resolutions. He introduced arguments about independence and payment, and said that there would be no guarantee that the new peers would stay bought, in the Tammany Hall phrase of the 1930s: but went on to say that most people come into politics with fixed convictions. He employed sophistry when talking about powerful speeches on the Bill not carrying the day in the Division Lobby. He dismissed the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who spoke of honour, and went on to talk of his moral priggishness, after which the Home Secretary walked out on the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Paget: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has an important Cabinet meeting concerned with a President from another place. He must attend that meeting. He warned me about it. It is not fair to criticise him on that ground.

Mr. Smith: That must explain why the Home Secretary rose to speak when only Privy Councillors had spoken on this side. This very important—indeed, central—subject deserved a speech less disingenuous than that made by the Home Secretary.
I do not support the Amendment, which I think is intended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to tie the Prime Minister down to one of his declared intentions. I oppose the Amendment because, although the Bill may be ill-advised, it need not be dishonest or incompetent. I believe that it is incompetent in matters of legislation to omit from a Bill a vital part of the subject. Procedures which are taken after legislation has been passed are normally regarded as patching procedures.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend must not, in the absence of any member

of the Cabinet, be unfair to the Government. Is my hon. Friend aware that, so far from this proposal being incompetent, it is an example of the Prime Minister's shrewdness? He wants to get the Bill through the House, despite the dislike of patronage of many of us, and then introduce the patronage.

Mr. Smith: I suggest that we on this side should not like the Prime Minister to appear to be incompetent. Of course peers will be paid; and if they are to be the creatures described in the Bill they must be paid.
I have not spoken on this subject before, except by way of intervention, and I have no special brief for the House of Lords as it is. In fact, my family have in general tended to resist ennoblement. Very few of them have accepted peerages. One of my family was the first banker to be ennobled, which prompted the rhyme—
Bobby Smith was made a peer
With his pen behind his ear.
—and that may have discouraged the rest of us.
But I have nothing against the House of Lords. I have no prejudice against the hereditary principle, which is admirably random in its effects. If pressed, I should be bound to say that I would sooner Dame Nature nominated peers rather than the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson). I am in favour of reform—it is happening already—but I am in favour of organic reform. Clean breaks are bad. They are a bad precedent, and should never be introduced in institutions which are the subject of organic growth.
The idea of full-time unpaid "don't-knows" is ridiculous. Nor do I like the idea of attendance requirements; the idea of a partly full-time person is nonsensical. But if we are to have this absurd scheme, then peers must be paid. It is not only extremely snobbish not to pay them but it is against the Government's interests. As anybody who has organised a constituency bazaar must know, volunteers cannot be bossed about.
How are the now famous cross-benchers, the licensed don't-knows, to be held on the fence if not by money? Much more important, and a subject adumbrated, if not actually reached, by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, if we do not pay peers, how are we


to get our own salaries put up here? The hon. and learned Gentleman said something to the effect that the prospect of going to another place is one of the rewards on retirement of Members here. They should not need something for their retirement from this House.
The idea that payment in the House of Lords should be related to work done, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), is an extremely outmoded concept. What similar employment can one imagine nowadays in which payment is related to the work done?

Mr. Ridley: Does not my hon. Friend think that it might be a mistake to impede the flow from this House to another place by failing to pay Members of another place, because it might result in lack of mobility in the Parliamentary system, from which we might suffer?

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have suggestions to deal with that contingency, to which I shall come later.
The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) suggested that there should be no pay for non-attendance, which again I thought an extremely outmoded concept. One can think of many bodies where one is paid for non-attendance, and where one's responsibilities are in no way diminished.
If the new peers are to be required to attend a certain amount, they will have considerable expenses. They will need secretaries and will have the same sort of expenses, though not to the same degree, as we have. We shall be introducing a system in which there is a premium on bad service, in which the less one spends on the expenses necessary to do one's job the more one will be paid. This, although it is an inevitable corollary of the Bill, is against the prices and incomes policy, and the very reverse of productivity.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It is exactly the same in this place.

Mr. Smith: We have discussed recently how we here are to have the accommodation necessary to do our job. We are to make these new peers professional. They will need staff to help them be professional and a place in which to house

the staff. How is that to be done within this building? Governments are ever better organised and better served, and yet members of Parliament are ever worse organised and worse able to afford the organisation they need to control Governments—and if this applies here, then a fortiori it must apply in a new House of Lords which is supposed to do its job without pay.
How much are the peers to be paid? The figure of £2,000 has been bandied about. It is grossly insufficient. What sort of man can you get for £2,000 a year? We want in the House of Lords the sort of men who can earn £2,000 a year by turning out for a meeting once a month. We do not want it to draw people who are in need of a trivial form of outdoor relief. If we underpay our masters, as we must suppose they are intended to be, they will most assuredly drag us and the rest of the nation down to their level. It always amazes me how very good we all are here when we consider how under-paid Members of Parliament, at both ends of the building, are.
But pay is not enough. What about pensions? Are these men, who are going to work two days a week for several months in the year, to be cast out with nothing at 72, with the prospect of many years before them after the very reasonable calls which have been made on their physique? It is possible to put just as much pressure on a person by denying him a pension for his retirement as it is by paying him when he is in his job.
If pensions in this House were not the derisory affair they are and were not run in a manner which has been out of date in the rest of the country for many decades, we should have a great deal more independence and should not have to suffer jibes like that of the Home Secretary just now, that people speak one way and vote another.
I am not in favour of the Amendment. I do not see why we should attempt to tie the Prime Minister down to this undesirable expression of his intention. I am not in favour of reforming the House of Lords in this way. But if we are to do so we must accept the implications. We must pay its Members. We must pay well enough to get good Members—and we must give them handsome pensions in their retirement—to ensure that those


new peers who are supposed to be independent stay independent, and those who are supposed to vote in a certain way go on voting that way.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) has addressed the Committee with the most attractive wit, and I am sure that we have listened with great pleasure to what he has had to say. I am not quite sure whether it would be practicable to translate all his witticisms into legislative enactments, but I hope that before the Committee stage is ended he will seek to do so. It will add greatly to our discussions. The particular financial proposals which he included in his speech should be incorporated in Amendments so that we can discuss them more fully in Committee or on Report.
Talking about peculiar forms of representation, it was said on one occasion by William Hazlitt that the City of London ought to be represented in this House of Commons by a large-sized turtle. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite got the physique for that, but at any rate he has made an excellent contribution to the debate, for which we are grateful.
These debates are in some respects the most important of the Committee stage. It is necessary, and unavoidable, that the debate should go wide, because it influences all the rest of the proposals. If we withdraw the whole element of payment the proposal is quite different. What nobody is quite sure about, not even the Home Secretary, is whether the proposal has really been withdrawn. We can all make our estimates and guesses, but we may come to different conclusions. I wish to refer later to the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and to the answers which I think they deserve from their own Front Bench.
As I have said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) said, it is most extraordinary that in these debates we received no guidance at all

from the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that the few representatives of that bench that we have will last the course so that they may hear that part of my speech. In some respects this is the most important aspect of the Bill, or at least it throws a light upon the most important aspect.
The Home Secretary did not deal with it at all satisfactorily. I do not blame him for not being present—I fully understand why he has had to go—but we must comment on what he has said. If he has really suggested that the whole view of the Government about the payment of peers has been changed by the debates that have previously taken place in Committee, then that ought to be clearly stated. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said—and it was perfectly right that it should be underlined—if the Government have changed their mind fundamentally on the question of pay, then everyone in the other place has the right to alter his vote when the matter goes there, because the original White Paper was presented to them in quite different terms.
In passing, I should like to qualify a remark I made about some persons in another place. In an earlier speech I said that there might be a revolt in another place if they discovered that the proposition that they were being offered was very different from the original proposition. I think that may very well be the case; it is one of the reasons why I urge the Government to alter their attitude about the Bill before they have to suffer the humiliation of a defeat in another place. In the course of those remarks I said, and I think it was an extremely inelegant phrase—which is why I wish to withdraw it—that even worms in ermine might turn.
I do not think that it was a clever thing to say at all. I gather that it has given some offence to noble Lords, and I withdraw it, because I am not attacking any of the individuals concerned. What I and many other hon. Members are seeking to attack is the institution which the Government are trying to establish, and which we shall be responsible for establishing if this goes through.
Many people have gone to the other place from the Labour Party and other parties, particularly perhaps since the life


peerage system came into operation—although I was bitterly opposed to it when it was established—because they believed that it was the best way in which they could perform a service or continue to perform services to the nation or to their parties. It would be most reprehensible and certainly most priggish, to use the word of the Home Secretary, if we in this place were to try to assume for ourselves moral superiority over people in the other place. I do not say that at all. Many people in the Labour Party who have gone to the other place and have suffered great financial loss as a result may find it extremely difficult to conduct their affairs because of the absence of a salary.
Therefore, in these criticisms I am not seeking to pass moral judgment—I am not qualified to do so—on anybody who goes to another place. Nor am I trying to depreciate the services rendered by people who have gone there out of the highest possible motive, as they conceive them, about how they can serve the state. None the less, we must examine with the greatest care the question of pay. It alters the whole institution and arrangement if salaries are paid and if they are part of the expectation. Many of the most critical arguments in the history of Parliament have been concerned with the amount of money paid to people in Government jobs. The arguments about placemen in the early part of the seventeenth century very much turned on the question of what would be the effect on Parliament if large numbers of people in Parliament were paid.
That is quite different from paying Ministers. Ministers are paid to do their job. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) emphasised, it has an effect in creating what some people offensively call a payroll vote. But even that is different from setting up a new body altogether which is nominated and paid at the same time. This is an entirely new principle introduced in our Constitution, and we must examine it with the utmost care. This Clause, in particular, affects the whole Bill in a way which we must examine at great length.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—and I say this in his absence—

must not say that he has not heard anything new in the debate. Most of the speeches which I have heard introduced new elements into the argument. He says that the pay proposal has been altered fundamentally because of argument in this Chamber. I do not agree that that is what has occurred, but that is what he says. If he says that, it alters the situation.
According to Gibbon, there was a speech made by a Roman emperor to some of his soldiers, the peroration of which was thought extremely eloquent. He concluded by announcing that a special donation of 200 sesterces would be provided for each soldier. Of course it would. If the 200 sesterces were removed, that might have altered the eloquence. By removing the pay altogether, one alters fundamentally the whole scheme. But we are invited to pass the Bill without being certain whether pay is in or not.
It is no good the Home Secretary saying, "We must have conventions in order to make Parliament work. Parliament works only if we have unwritten conventions and because there is accommodation between different sides". That is true. We all know that some things can be decided only because they are not written down. But that is not what happens when a Bill is introduced. The purpose of a Bill is to write it down. That is one reason why we think that the Bill is so peculiar. First of all, we have a Preamble which does not write it down, and now we are told that some of the main items should not be written in, either. We cannot say that this is a matter to be left to a convention or an agreement, nor can we say properly that it will be possible for it to be included in a Resolution subsequently.
It is true that we have not yet discussed very many Clauses, but in each of the Clauses we have discussed some major item is left over for decision later on. The size of the new Chamber, the numbers to be appointed—all these matters are left to be decided later. Now the question of the cash is to be decided later. As we go through one item after another we discover that one essential part of the Bill after another is not included. Presumably they will be part of a convention to be agreed—but to be agreed between whom? We do not know that. It seems that one party to


the bargain has already contracted out, but we will come in a moment to the other parties to the bargain.
First of all, I wish to establish the proposition that I put to the Home Secretary earlier, that those on these benches—I leave out hon. Members opposite in this matter—who are so bitterly opposed to the Bill, and will continue to be, are representing the traditional view of the Labour Party. What the Government have done has been to depart fundamentally from what has been not merely the understanding of the Labour Party dating back for 50 years or more—and that is a fact—but the understanding of the Labour Party quite recently, and the understanding of most members of the Opposition Front Bench quite recently.
The future of the second Chamber was fully discussed here during the passage of the Life Peerages Bill in 1958. The numbers of the second Chamber, how it should be organised and arranged, and whether its members should be paid were all discussed when that Bill was introduced by Mr. Butler, as he then was—the Home Secretary of the time—and now Lord Butler in another place. As I have mentioned before, in his speech in another place Lord Butler has said that he regards the Life Peerages Bill as having been the precursor of this Bill. He is very proud of it. He has said that when he introduced that Bill he thought that he would not get it through the House of Commons because of furious opposition from the Labour benches. He said that that Bill was the thin end of the wedge: what we have now is the thick end of the wedge.
Let us look back for a moment to the attitude of the Labour Party when the House was discussing the thin end of the wedge. We will come to the vote in a moment. The Home Secretary says that he does not worry so much about the speeches because it is the votes that matter, so I will come to the vote later. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not regard it as Parliamentarily improper if I refer to speeches that were then made. I want to quote at some length, if I may, because those of us who have spent many hours in opposition have a right to state our view to the Committee, to the country and to the Labour Party, and to ask Labour people in the country to

judge who in these matters is standing by Labour Party principles and who is not.
9.45 p.m.
I wish to quote Aneurin Bevan, as I think that I am entitled to. I know that some members of the Government occasionally quote Aneurin Bevan but I think that they are unwise to do so. I believe that a Government that have imposed prescription charges should never quote Aneurin Bevan, but that may be just a quirk on my part. In this matter we are entitled to quote what Aneurin Bevan said on 13th February, 1958, on the Life Peerages Bill. I shall not quote the whole speech, but the latter part of it in which he referred to the question of money—the cash which we are now discussing. He said:
I want to warn right hon. and hon. Gentlemen seriously about the consequences of what they are doing now. Everybody who has studied this subject knows that the inwardness of the situation today is the inability to find Socialists to go to the House of Lords to perform their functions there without payment. That is the main difficulty. We never have any difficulties when we are the Government. We can always give enough offices over there to have the job done; it is easy. What happens now, however, is that our noble Friends cannot attend. It is too onerous.
The proposal to make life peers is, in my opinion"—
although he said that it was his opinion, Mr. Bevan was speaking officially on behalf of the Opposition at that time—
the unimportant part of these proposals. That is the facade. The important point is that it is now intended, because of the acceptance of this relationship between the two Houses, that there should be remuneration for the peers. It was stated on the other side of the House by three hon. Members that the time had come to pay the peers. Pelf for peers. It is now being said that it is fair not only that noble Lords should inherit powers from their parents, but that we should confer an honorarium upon them. That is the intention. Already, there is a beginning. Already, they are paid, I think, three guineas a day expenses. It is. not much, but it will go up.
And it has.
It is certain to go up. The Leader of the House of Lords begged Members the other day not to press him at this delicate moment for an increase in pay. I do not know whether the delicacy derives from my friend Frank Cousins, or whether it derives from the fact that his Bill has not yet passed through this House.
He was referring then to the Life Peerages Bill.
The fact is that it is now intended to pay the House of Lords, but, of course, it is a big


step to pay 867 people, and an ingenious method is therefore being devised by which some of their noble Lordships can have leave of absence from the Crown.
Not altogether different from the proposals now before this House.
They can have exemption from attendance. That will leave we do not know how many but a small number, perhaps 200 or 300, who will still attend.
Not a bad quess for 1958.
Then some life peers will be made—how many we do not yet know—and they will go to the House of Lords, and a nice honorarium will alight on all of them. And here the House of Commons, which has not given its own Members pensions, will give pensions for life to the Lords. That is exactly it.
There was some objection earlier to the kind of language used in the debate. I almost hesitate to go on, but I must complete the passage:
Never was a slimier trick played. It is our view that the whole idea is that the peer's son should have a reward for his services. So, for the residual services that are left after the attrition of centuries, it is now proposed that the House of Commons, in its right senses, should confer upon their Lordships not only influence but pensions for life"—
Apparently, the 72 Amendment is, I suppose, the Government's excuse. Mr. Bevan was at that point interrupted by Brigadier Terence Clarke, who said:
Give them a 'bob' for the job"—
to which Mr. Bevan responded,
Yes, jobs for the boys".
Brigadier Clarke objected and said:
No, give them a 'bob' for the job—not jobs for the boys. That is what the party opposite gave before.
Mr. Bevan continued:
I would not have invented so vulgar a phrase myself, but, of course, it is true that outside this Palace not very much interest is taken in this Measure. For us here at present, it is merely a matter between ourselves. But Milton warned us about this. He said:
'Consider Liberty, and do not bind her when she sleeps'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th Feb., '58; Vol. 582, c. 692–3.]
That is one of the reasons why some of us think that, when we oppose this Bill, we sustain the proper traditions of the Labour Party. Let no Minister tell me that, of course, we all know that Aneurin Bevan always took a rather Leftward view on these matters. Speaking earlier in the debate—I shall not quote at length—Sir Frank Soskice, as he then

was—now a Member of the other place—warned:
If they are to be life salaries, or salaries for a term of years, I ask the Government whether they have considered the implications of what they are doing.
Have they considered what a vast new field of patronage is being created?
He went on:
I put it seriously to the Government that if they try to operate the Bill, and make any use of it, they will be embarking upon a most dangerous precedent. They will be placing any Prime Minister in future under the disagreeable and invidious necessity of having to distribute largesse or to recommend the distribution of largesse on an immense scale. When I say an immense scale, I speak in the dark because we do not know how many new peers are contemplated. If it is only a matter of 20 or 30, I would ask whether it is desirable, as a necessity of our governmental life, that the Prime Minister should have at his command the distribution of largesse even if only on that scale. If we knew what were the Government's intentions, we should be in a position to form a clear judgment upon it, and I press the right hon. Gentleman on this point.… It is a Bill of evil presage. If we start doing that sort of thing, we are embarking on an extremely undesirable course, and I think that it would be extremely invidious for any Prime Minister in the future to contemplate the discharge of the new duty which would be put upon him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 586–8.]
People talk about the reputation of the House of Commons, the reputation of politicians and the reputation of parties. I am very much concerned with the reputation of my party. It is not good for the reputation of parties or individuals to change their fundamental views on matters of principle, at any rate not without a full explanation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton spoke as though no question of principle were involved in whether we should pay the peers, but nobody can read the speeches of Aneurin Bevan or Sir Frank Soskice of 10 years ago and say that there is no question of principle. That was the basis on which they opposed the Life Peerages Bill. As for the Division; one of those who voted against the Life Peerages Bill on that occasion was the Home Secretary himself, as did several others of those who are now on the Treasury Bench.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I was fascinated by the passages which my hon. Friend read, but I


heard him refer on two or three occasions to the payment to peers' sons. Was not Aneurin Bevan's condemnation largely in relation to the payment of peers by succession?

Mr. Foot: Of course he was opposed to the hereditary principle, but he was certainly not in favour of a change to a reformed House of Lords by the substitution of a nominated Chamber. As I think was clear from what I was reading, there is not the slightest doubt that he was opposing the principle of nomination. In my opinion, although nobody can be certain, he was opposed to the idea of a nominated Chamber even more fiercely than he was opposed to the proposition of sustaining the present Chamber, because a nominated Chamber introduces all the extensive dangers of patronage to which he and Sir Frank Soskice were referring.
What I am saying is that on that occasion 10 years ago the official policy of the Labour Party was not merely to be opposed to the hereditary principle, but to be opposed, because it saw the dangers of this large-scale fresh patronage system being introduced into our Constitution, to a nominated Chamber. Therefore, those of us who hold to this view are holding consistently to the view of the Labour Party. We are holding consistently to the view of the Labour Party, although I will not elaborate this, in the sense that we have a mandate for what we propose, which is to strip the other place of its powers. Indeed, that is the compromise which the Government will eventually have to reach, and when they return to that they will be exactly in line with Labour Party policy. But there is not a scrap of mandate for the kind of body for which they ask, and least of all is there any support in Labour Party policy for the idea of the payment of peers with all the consequences which have been described.
The debate that we have had on payment brings us once more to the question of how we are to resolve these problems in the House, how we are to deal with a political situation where the Government seek to force through the House a Measure which is bitterly opposed on both sides, a Measure for which, although the Government can get majorities, as the Home Secretary says, any fair observer of what is happening in the House

would agree that there has been hardly any support from the back benches, except perhaps from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, and to which there has been growing opposition.
As I have said and as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) and others have said, the proposal that is now going through the House is a different one from that which was originally proposed to the other place, bad as most of us think that was. It is my judgment, and I may be quite wrong, that when this Bill reaches the other place, if it ever does, there will be a very different reaction to it, particularly on this Clause. If that occurs then the Government will really be in the soup. If there is a revolt of the peers against what is now proposed then the Government will suffer the gravest humiliation. That is why some of us are pleading with them still to look at the matter again.
That brings me to the attitude of the Opposition Front Bench. The experience we are having with the Opposition Front Bench is unique in my recollection of Parliament, in this sense. Here is a major issue, nobody disputes that this is a constitutional Measure of first-class importance; nobody can dispute that if this Measure goes through and is passed it will alter the whole nature of the British Constitution, maybe for generations to come. That is the intention and the purpose of it. It is not a short-term Measure, a minor amendment Act, it is a major change in the constitution.
I do not believe that in the whole history of Parliament there can have been a single example of a Measure of such constitutional importance, with Clauses such as we are now discussing which alter the nature of the constitution, upon which we are given no advice of the official view of the Conservative Party. It is no business of mine to protect them, but it is a matter of extreme discourtesy towards their own backbenchers, their own right hon. Friends who make very powerful speeches in this matter. It is an extraordinary state of affairs when the Opposition Front Bench does not even attempt to answer the arguments on these questions which their right hon. Friends think are of such importance.
We have had the extraordinary spectacle of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) who spoke on the White Paper; he came in for a few minutes and went out without a word. Other Front Benchers have come in and gone out without a word. The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who we hoped would contribute to the debate, has not uttered a word. I have never seen anything like them. Look at them, these unlikely novices for a new Trappist order, these bashful tip-toeing ghosts, these pale effigies of what were once sentient, palpable, human specimens, these un-larynxed wraiths, these ectoplasmic apparitions, these sphinx-like sentinels at our debates, why are they here?
That cannot be said about this side. I agree that the Government have not

been very successful, but they have at least attempted to answer the arguments. This is no joking matter. It is a matter of real seriousness.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 92.

Division No. 88.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Ford, Ben
Mackie, John


Anderson, Donald
Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.


Archer, Peter
Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth


Beaney, Alan
Gardner, Tony
Marquand, David


Bence, Cyril
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Binns, John
Gregory, Arnold
Mendelson, John


Bishop, E. S.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Millan, Bruce


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th-pton, Test)


Boyden, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Albert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hattersley, Roy
Oakes, Gordon


Buchan, Norman
Hazell, Bert
O'Malley, Brian


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Henig, Stanley
Oram, Albert E.


Chapman, Donald
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oswald, Thomas


Coe, Denis
Hilton, W. S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Conlan, Bernard
Howie, W.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hoy, James
Pavitt, Laurence


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Huckfield, Leslie
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hynd, John
Probert, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Doig, Peter
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Dunn, James A.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rowlands, E.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kelley, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius


Ellis, John
Ledger, Ron
Small, William


English, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ensor, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lomas, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Loughlin, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Fernyhough, E.
Luard, Evan
Tinn, James


Finch, Harold
McBride, Nell
Tuck, Raphael


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacColl, James
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (lslington, E.)
Macdonald, A. H.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foley, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wallace, George




Watkins, David (consett)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Williams, Clifford (Abertilfery)



White, Mrs. Eirene
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Willkins, W. A.
Winnick, David
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and




Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Paget, R. T.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hay, John
Pardoe, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Llonel
Percival, Ian


Barnes, Michael
Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)
Hooson, Emlyn
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bitten, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nalrn)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roebuck, Roy


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Corfield, F, V.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Smith, John (London & W 'minster)


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dean, Paul
Lubbock, Eric
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dickens, James
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Waddington, David


Farr, John
Mikardo, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper
Ward, Dame Irene


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wright, Esmond


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Murton, Oscar
Wylie, N. R.


Foster, Sir John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Younger, Hn. George


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Newens, Stan



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Airey Neave and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Sir Charles Mort-Radclyffe.

PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Michael Foot: If anyone wants proof of my disinterest in this matter, it is that I have just voted to stop myself speaking. I see, however, from the Division figures, that the majority of the Committee is opposed to that policy, and the Home Secretary says that we must always accept the majority vote. I am not sure whether everyone was fully aware of the implications of his vote.
I am sorry that the Government still do not yield to our pleadings and pressures to reconsider their attitude to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. By the way, what was the Parliament (No. 1) Bill? Does anyone remember what it is and what happened to it? It might be wise for the Government to look it up. Whatever it may be, we are now to proceed with a Bill which should never have been introduced, because it defies the longstanding views of the Labour Party, a Bill which has many other objections on

other grounds to be made against it by others in the Committee, but a Bill which should unite in opposition to it hon. Members on both sides, as it has done, because of the fact that it becomes plainer with every debate that the Government have not been prepared to define in the Bill what they intend to achieve at the end.
As I have suggested before, and as others are bound to suggest as we consider Clause after Clause of the Bill, we cannot do that about, in particular, a Measure which is supposed to shape the Constitution for many years to come. The pleas which some of us make on this matter, therefore, are extremely serious. We have proposed this a number of times since the Bill was introduced. We proposed it in the debate on the White Paper and showed by our votes then how deep was the hostility to the Measure, and the Government then could have accepted the view of hon. Members. It is true that they had a majority for the Measure, but whatever Governments may say and whatever the Home Secretary may have told us today about "payroll votes", the Government, in their own interests, should take into account the views of those who voted on that occasion.
I am not condemning people because they vote according to a payroll vote. They are perfectly entitled to do so. Indeed, it would be a very strange affair—although it did happen in the House many centuries ago—if members of the Government were voting in different Lobbies on Measures of this nature. So I make no criticism of any of those members of the Government who voted for the Government in the White Paper debate, on Second Reading, or on any of these Amendments. All of us know the conventions of the House in this respect and know that it would be extremely difficult to conduct the affairs of the House if these facts were not recognised. In general terms, I accept the Home Secretary's view, stated in his answer to the debate earlier, that, of course, we have to operate a party system here and in the country, since otherwise democracy itself could not survive.
I accept all those doctrines, but the very fact that that is so surely means that the Government must show a greater sensitivity to what occurs in the Committee. If the Government say that they insist on a payroll vote—I use the term with no offensive connotation—and that, in order to sustain party operations and party government, they have to maintain a system whereby they can call on members of the Government to vote for them in the Lobby, all the more is it the Government's obligation to recognise, to listen to and to heed what is said to them by the Committee.
10.15 p.m.
A novel situation has arisen over this Bill, partly because of the strength of the arguments from different sides of the Committee, and partly because the arguments which have been presented have not been answered at all. I am not saying that that is not a novelty in the House of Commons. If I racked my brains, I could recall other occasions when this has occurred. But I do not recall a precedent of a situation where on a substantial Measure of first-class importance there had been an agreement between the Front Benches and where not a single Member on the Front Opposition Bench would say whether or not a pay Clause involved a bargain or understanding. We have a right to know, and it is extraordinary that we have not had an answer.
The Home Secretary said earlier in his reply that the question properly has to be put to the Opposition Front Bench. I should like an answer from the Home Secretary. I have been doing my best to get one and I have not succeeded. But hon. Gentlemen opposite must not escape their obligation; they should put questions to their own Front Bench.
It is now proposed that the Bill should be passed through the House of Commons in the situation that the Opposition Front Bench will not tell the Committee its attitude to it, its verdict upon it, or whether or not it thinks it is right for the constitution. Surely we should have answers on these matters. Or are they still having consultations with people in another place? That is another possibility, because the original understanding was not merely an understanding between the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberals. It was an understanding in which the leaders of the different parties in the House of Lords also had to give their views.
Because I am jealous of the rights of this House, I say that we have a right to know about this understanding before the Bill goes to another place. Have we to wait for the Bill to go to another place to understand whether or not there was a bargain about pay and whether those who entered into the bargain are satisfied with the new arrangements? We have not even been told that they are. This affects the situation.
It is conceivable that hon. Gentlemen opposite might be in a position to exercise these powers. They might have to operate this Bill. Some of them think that at that time they might be sitting on the Treasury Bench. Yet right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the Committee, who sometimes talk as if they think that such an appalling eventuality might occur, are not prepared to tell the Committee how they would exercise such powers.
The Committee is in an extraordinary situation that neither Front Bench will say how the major Clauses will operate. On every Clause we reach we try to extort from them, wheedle from them by every Parliamentary device, an answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The right hon. Member for Barnet will have been pleased at the innovation which


greeted his arrival in the Chamber. Now that we have on the Opposition Front Bench a spirit from the vast deep, I trust that we shall receive some enlightenment. It would be improper for me to repeat the arguments I have been adducing, but a comment from the right hon. Gentleman might help to expedite our proceedings.
Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us, on behalf of the Opposition, if the pay Clause was in the original bargain, whether his colleagues agreed to it being removed, if they are satisfied with the proposals that are now being made and whether these alterations fundamentally differ from the original proposition? Have the Opposition had consultations with the Government about the Measure and does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Bill is sufficient importance for the Conservative leadership to be kind enough to give us their view about it?
It is not satisfactory for the right hon. Gentleman to think that he can laugh this one off. The House of Commons does not regard this as a laughing matter. We have as much right to hear from the Conservative leadership as we have to hear from the Home Secretary. In the Division which occurred a short while ago hon. Members voted that my speech should continue. There is plenty of time for the right hon. Member for Barnet to intervene and, as we have had an unsatisfactory reply from the Home Secretary, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will at least say something.

Mr. Maudling: The simple point is that this is the Government's Bill.

Mr. Foot: Is that all the right hon. Gentleman intends to say? Can he recall any major constitutional Bill proposed by any Government about which Her Majesty's Opposition, and particularly its leadership, has refused to comment? Why are right hon. Gentlemen opposite silent on this occasion? It must be because they support the Measure, Nevertheless, they have speeches from their hon. Friends to answer. Perhaps they do not want to stand up to those speeches, some of which have been extremely formidable. At least they should have the courtesy to listen to them.
The excuse that this is a Government Bill does not mean that the Conservative leadership is excluded from commenting

on it. Does the right hon. Gentleman's intervention mean that in future the Patronage Secretary—who, I am glad to say, has played very little part in the operation of these debates—need only say, "This is a Government Bill", and it will go through virtually on the nod without comment from the Opposition?
I indicated on a previous occasion that the right hon. Member for Barnet is in a special position. Unlike some of his colleagues, the right hon. Gentleman denies that there was a bargain. However, he says that he is in favour of the Bill, which means, as I pointed out previously, that he supports it on its merits; every incomprehensible Clause and subnormal subsection. He is in favour of the lot and is so enthusiastic that he does not even take the risk of uttering a word in its defence.
If the right hon. Member for Barnet had his way, this important constitutional Measure would go through with hardly a word being spoken about it. Few hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that this is a proper way of dealing with a major Bill. Irrespective of their views there are many hon. Members on this side who are determined to fight the Bill to the end. Fortuunately a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite take the same view. We urge the Government, in their own interest, to reconsider the matter. The Cabinet should have early fresh discussions on the subject, and that would be the wisest course not only for Parliament but for the Government.
I believe that if they proceed with this Measure, it is likely that they will have a hopeless confusion between this place and the other place, because it is possible that there could be a revolt even there. Or, if there is no revolt, it will mean that the other place is to permit the Bill to go through on false pretences.
If the other place agrees to this Measure in the form in which the Government, with at least the connivance of the Opposition Front Bench, propose, they will be saying, at a time when democracy is an issue being debated throughout the land and whether democratic institutions can survive, "What the Government, the House of Commons and Parliament propose is that the constitution shall be rearranged in a manner which we are not prepared to divulge to


the nation. We are not prepared to divulge to the nation what its size will be. We will conceal what payment will be made in some later circumstance. We will not tell the country how we propose to carry out the proposals for maintaining a Government majority, because nobody knows how it can be done otherwise."
Therefore, on a major constitutional matter a Measure will have been put through this Chamber and passed by the other place the meaning of which none of us will be able to explain to our constituents.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said at the beginning of the Committee stage. In my judgment, he did a notable service to the House of Commons and to democracy in this country by the way he started these Committee stage debates. He showed that it was possible to exercise the delaying

powers of the House of Commons for the purpose for which it is intended. He deserves greatly of the House of Commons for doing it. But, even more, I agree with him, because it applies particularly to the Clause, when he said that the country and Members of the House of Commons must be careful how we remodel our democratic institutions at a time when they are being attacked up and down the country.
The ideas of free speech and free debate and the essentials of democracy in this country, as in most other countries, are under fire. That is all the more reason why we should pass laws that are clear, why we should define every Clause, why we should demand an answer to every argument and why we should insist upon the Measure being absolutely precise and clear in all its intentions and all its Clauses. No Member can honestly say that such a Bill as that is now passing through the Committee.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, once again, in this Committee.
I feel that I can speak with some personal experience on the subject of these Amendments because my job for the last five or six years has been to recruit men to positions of senior responsibility in industry, commerce and the professions, and I am used to negotiations involving remuneration. I therefore have some ideas on this subject based on personal knowledge.
I think that right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment have either been abolitionists or retentionists concerning the House of Lords. I am neither. I should like the Bill to go through, but, in the process of going through the Committee, I should like it to be drastically changed. Despite the insults which have been thrown from the Front Bench opposite, I will continue to soldier on.
Despite my great admiration for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) I am obliged to speak in a sense which is diametrically opposed to the terms of his Amendment. I realise that whatever disadvantages may arise in consequence of paying members of the other House—and they are serious—if we are to have an upper House which will play a part in the government of the country of any value its members must be paid—and paid substantially.
10.30 p.m.
I would quote from the Second Reading debate a sentence by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home):
I rather wish that on this issue the Prime Minister had had the courage to say straight to the House that if the new second Chamber has to do a job of work, its Members must be paid the rate for the job and a proper salary. That would have been a much cleaner proposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 153.]
I would also quote from what the Government themselves said in their White Paper:
The Government considers that members without private means should not thereby be prevented from playing a full part, and therefore proposes that voting peers should in future receive some remuneration (subject to tax)"—

we must not forget the class war—
which would reflect the responsibilities and duties which they would be expected to undertake".
There is a well-known phrase in personnel selection circles, and, in spite of its vulgarity, I will repeat it: "If you pay peanuts you only attract monkeys." We have to ask ourselves, in considering these Amendments, what sort of men do we want to attract? Are we to attract into the other place retired Members of the House of Commons? Or men of private means? Or men who have concluded their careers in the professions or in trade and are now simply looking for a hobby? My feeling is that the new House of Lords ought not to be a Valhalla for dead heroes, but ought to be full of active men who are in full command of their faculties.
This is a vital consideration, not only because we need the value of their work, but also because, if the Upper House is to survive in the long run, its Members must be acceptable to the British public. The new House of Lords must have its foundation in public respect, and be based on the authority of its Members as individuals, and not as representatives of any particular party. The survival of the Upper House in the constitution will depend upon the sum of the merits of all the people who are persuaded to work there and not simply because it will have inherited a centuries old tradition. I am sure that events will very soon prove us wrong if we expect to get something for nothing.
I agree that a man may not necessarily be attracted to public work only by money. It may be possible to attract a man to a position of responsibility because he is interested in the exercise of authority, and this is not necessarily a bad motive. It could be patriotism which would make a man wish to serve in the Upper House, or a natural desire for public esteem. But under the Bill as we have it now, the Upper House will have no authority; so people who are interested in taking up a position of authority will not be attracted to serve there. It is impossible to attract men to work in a purely advisory House simply as a public duty, and it would be wrong for us even to try. Therefore I am certain that if the Government's reform is to succeed, and I still hope that it may, the Lords will have to be paid.

The question then arises, on what basis? It is accepted in the Bill that they would at any rate be paid their expenses. By all means let them be compensated for out of pocket expenses, but really that is not enough.

The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie)—I am sorry he is not in his place—suggested that Members of the Upper House should be paid for attendance. This is a suggestion which deserves consideration, but to my way of thinking it is undesirable for two reasons. Firstly we should tend to fill up the Chamber with men who are not experts on the subjects in question, but are simply there to make up their quota of attendances. Second, I dislike his idea because it neglects the time spent in keeping abreast of the issues of the day.

The right principle to adopt is that of the retainer, by which Members of the Upper House must express their readiness to accept the obligations of the office however time consuming they may be. Let us suppose, for example, that the President of the Royal College of Surgeons or of the Royal Institute of British Architects eventually, despite the Government's opposition to the suggestions made in the Committee a few days ago, found their way into the Upper House. One would expect them to speak but rarely. But on the subject on which they are expert, when it arose, their opinion should be well worth having and paying for.

It would be right then to ask how much one should pay. The busy man has an agenda, and in the end will allocate his time according to what his conscience tells him his obligations are.

Mr. Ridley: Has my hon. Friend considered so many pounds per column of HANSARD?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: If my hon. Friend had been able to hear what I said, or had listened to it if he had, he would have realised that that is precisely the basis I have rejected.
The smaller the other House, the higher the figure that should be paid. I want now to be quite specific. If we have a large house of 600 Members, as

I recommend, the sum of about £2,000 a year would be appropriate. But if the Government insist on keeping the figure to about 230, the Members will have to be paid at least twice as much if we are to attract men of the right kind who will be able to give enough time.
The word "patronage" has been used again and again in the Committee, and we are still waiting for the Government to give their explanation of the way in which they will avoid the misuse of patronage in the future. But Britain is not Byzantium yet, and public opinion still counts for something. The greater the remuneration that goes with a place in the other House, the greater will be the scandal arising from the abuse of the power of patronage in nominating people to it.
Therefore, I trust that the Government will return to their original view as expressed in the White Paper, and amend the Bill to give some chance for their reforms to work.

Mr. Heffer: I want to say a few words on the Amendments because I think that I may have a slightly different point of view from some of my hon. Friends.
In the debate on the White Paper I said that I had no objections to the payment of Members of the other House, provided they were democratically elected and arrived there on the basis of a constituency in the same way as we arrive here. I think that that is the correct principle. If we are to have an elected, democratically arrived at second Chamber, it is obvious that there must be payment. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the ordinary person without independent means to become a Member of the other House, just as there were great difficulties in this House for the trade unionists and so on who were elected in the early days and did not receive payment to sustain themselves, but counted on the support of their trade unions or collections amongst their friends. Obviously, we have got past that stage.
But, of course, in this Bill we are not discussing an elected second Chamber but one that will be entirely nominated. That is a different matter because it would develop a system unprecedented anywhere else in the world. I know of


no second Chamber existing on the basis proposed here. It is, therefore, impossible for the House of Commons to accept a position where there would be payment on this basis for nominated representatives in another place.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) went a little too far in his criticism, in a sense suggesting that we all here are looking to the other place to solve our problems and that there is a long queue. There may well be a queue. If there is, hon. Members who are in it have not told me, although that is not surprising. I can imagine why they will not tell me. But if we contrast what happens in another place with what happens here, we have ground for justifiable concern.
Ordinary people think that, on £3,250 a year, we are in the millionaire class. They do not know that we have to supply our own secretaries and their equipment, such as typewriters, that we have to pay for our telephone calls outside London and buy our own stamps for letters to our constituents. They do not know all the other things which go with being a Member of Parliament, such as having to have a home in London as well as in one's constituency. And I still pay an enormous amount of Income Tax even on the basis of what is left.
But the point involved here is that we have to incur these expenses while the Lords have none of them. They do not and will not have constituencies; they will not get shoals of letters from constituencies demanding what Section 4(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act means. We get them. Sometimes I have never even heard of the Bill I am asked about. The Lords will not have to suffer that sort of problem. They will have no responsibility in the sense that we have a responsibility to our parties, which put us here, to our electors, to our local constituency parties, to all the pressure groups in our constituencies. Indeed, sometimes I find it difficult to know who I am responsible to.
A Member of this House is also responsible to himself because he tries to keep his integrity in face of all these pressures. But the noble Lords will have no responsibility at all except to the individuals who nominate them in the first place. It is true that, once there,

they can thumb their noses and say, "We are not interested now. You put us there but we will not bother to go." That would be a traitorous thing to do—some of them would do it. It happens now. Nevertheless, on the basis of the nomination, they would be expected to be the creatures of those who nominated them, and sent them there, those who would be responsible for their remuneration. It is not good enough, and this Committee ought not to allow this situation to develop.
10.45 p.m.
There is a great mystery about this, because the White Paper said quite clearly that there would be remuneration. It was not clear as to what that remuneration was to be—something like £2,000 a year was mentioned. What happened was that there was a great argument, in the Labour Party particularly, about this question of remuneration. Let us be honest, open and frank about it; we should always be open, honest and frank. The facts are that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench believed that they could get this Bill through much more easily if they dropped this question of remuneration. They thought that half the opposition would die away, that it all revolved around this question of remuneration. What did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say? In the Second Reading debate on 3rd February—I will not quote him in full—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—very well, I will. He said:
In the light of these considerations, which I think ought to have more thought given to them, the Government have decided not to pursue the White Paper proposal about payment. The existing system of tax-free expenses will, therefore, continue, but there will be no salary, and, equally, there will be no examination, such as we originally suggested, to take place by an independent committee, such as the Lawrence Committee, which investigated House of Commons remuneration."—

Mr. John Hall: The hon. Gentleman is going a little too fast for us. Would he slow down a little?

Mr. Roy Roebuck: What was the Lawrence Committee?

Mr. Heffer: The Lawrence Committee was the committee which decided to look into the salaries and remuneration of the House of Commons. Does my hon. Friend want a full explanation?

Mr. Roebuck: Yes.

Mr. Hefler: The Lawrence Committee was set up by the Tory Party when it was in office. It came along with an elaborate report, and made certain proposals, which both parties, prior to the 1964 election, pledged themselves to put into operation—or at least some of them. This is what happened.
The Prime Minister continued:
… and this will, therefore, not take place at this stage. This will enable us to see how the reformed House works in practice, to see what form of remuneration is best fitted to enable voting peers to give the necessary time to the work of the reformed House, and to form a considered view of the broader issues involved, including those which I have just mentioned. This does not mean that we have decided that voting Members should not be paid at some time in the future, or that they should. It simply means that we are preserving an open mind so that the matter can be considered in the light of experience at a more suitable time in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 54–55.]

Mr. Walter Clegg: Would the hon. Gentleman like to translate that?

Mr. Heffer: What?—into "Scouse"? I am being serious about this because it is a serious matter. The proposal was there in the White Paper, but it is dropped from the Bill. The operative words in that passage I quoted from my right hon. Friend were,
at a more suitable time".
Obviously, this is not a suitable time, since it will run into immense opposition in the House. But, having got the Bill through, at one o'clock in the morning on some occasion the Government will slip their proposal through the House, and that will be the "more suitable time ".

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I think that my hon. Friend is being less than charitable to the Prime Minister. No doubt, the Prime Minister means to put the detail of it in the next election programme so as to be sure that the electorate is able to vote on it. He has in mind getting the electorate to agree on £2,000 a year for the peers.

Mr. Heffer: I had not thought that that was the idea of a more suitable time. My hon. Friend may be right, but he may be wrong, and I have a feeling that he is more wrong than right. I suspect that what my right hon. Friends

have in mind is that, after the Bill has gone through, the question of numbers and pay will come up at a later and more suitable time. The decision will be pushed through the House, and pushed through, in my view, against the best interests of Parliament, the country and democracy. That is the essential point. If the proposal were to have a democratically elected second Chamber, I should not vote against the idea of payment, but in the circumstances of the present Bill I cannot regard it as acceptable.
Let us consider further the payroll vote, as it has been called, and the independence of Members. I feel that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton was a little unfair in his approach to this aspect of the question. I know many hon. Members who, like Winston Churchill, would never accept a peerage, who would never go to the other place, because they feel that it would not be right to do so. I have a firm conviction on the question, and I shall never change my mind about it. I have only the money which I earned outside before I came to the House or the money which I receive as remuneration here. I should not care if I was offered £10,000 a year to go to the other place. I would rather go back to the building sites as a joiner than accept that sort of position, going to the other place as a nominee under patronage of whoever it was who made the suggestion.
I say that as a democrat, as someone who believes passionately in the concept of democracy. There are many hon. Members who feel exactly as I do and who will not be any the less independent in their views even if they find themselves in difficulties with their own party because of their independence. If we are not independent, if we are not prepared to fight for what we believe in, we have no right in this place at all. The whole business of democracy, defending not only the party programme on which we are elected but defending the interests of our constituents and standing up for what we think right, is an essential part of our political life. There are many hon. Members who regard it as something of an insult that it should even be suggested that we should be lining up to go into another place because it means a safe


berth and a safe pension. In a sense, it is even an insult to the House of Commons.
If my right hon. Friends are serious in what they say about remuneration, why do they not accept the Amendment? The whole debate could have been eliminated. There is no provision in the Bill for remuneration, and the Government could therefore say that they have no idea of bringing in remuneration and that they will accept the Amendment saying that there will be no remuneration. But they are not saying that, and they are not saying that because the Prime Minister gave the game away with his remark that at a more suitable time there would be remuneration. That is the essence and core of the argument.

Mr. Angus Maude: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest why, if he is net to be paid, anyone should submit to the indignity of being appointed to the other place under the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Heffer: I must confess that I find it difficult to understand why anybody should want to go to the other place in any case, quite apart from the Bill; that anyone should want to go on the terms of the Bill I find incomprenhensible.
Perhaps. I should not detain the Committee too long, for other hon. Members wish to speak on this subject and later we shall have other interesting debates, particularly about the Scottish peers. I shall be fascinated by that debate.
The whole idea of nomination to a second Chamber is distasteful to me and to all other democrats. If we are to go forward in a democratic sense, we have to expand democracy, not contract it. In an earlier debate, I argued for the complete abolition of the other place, but if we are to have a second Chamber, it must be democratically elected. The proposition in the Bill is neither one nor the other and all it will do is strengthen an undemocratic system.
It will worsen the position from both points of view. While noble Lords arrive in the other place by birth, we cannot determine that a Conservative Lord will necessarily give birth to a Conservative Lord; he might be a Liberal—[HON. MEMBERS: "He would have to be a Lady."]—he might be anything; he might even be on the editorial board of the

Black Dwarf—several are. All that will be eliminated, and at the end of each Parliament there will be a change, although we do not even know how that change is to be made.
11.0 p.m.
I find it extremely difficult to know how this is going to happen. It all fits in with the idea of remuneration for the noble Lords in the other place. If we do not know the figure, and one finds that, say, the Labour Party has a majority in the other place, and then, God forbid, the Opposition get into power here, one would have to have more Tories in the other place and so would make more Lords. Does one then make some of the others redundant? If one does make them redundant, what is going to happen to them? Are they going to get—perhaps after five years—a handsome pension, or are they going to go—as some of us may—on social security?
Of course we in this House are self-employed; we do not even get unemployment benefit if we lose our jobs. I think this is a rather important point, and indeed I have looked into this factor.
But what is going to happen to the noble Lords? It is terrible to think of them knocking at some social security office.

Mr. Peter Kirk: If the noble Lords get a salary, will they not be able to claim under the Redundancy Payments Act?

Mr. Heffer: No, because we cannot claim under the Redundancy Payments Act either. Of course, there could be an Amendment to the Act, and while the Government were doing it they could bring it in for us as well. It would be very handy. But imagine Lord Bill Brown of Battersea knocking on the social security door and saying, "I have been made redundant—what do I get?" Look at the situation seriously. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous and absurd.

Mr. John Hall: Would not the matter be solved satisfactorily for everybody, including hon. Members of this House, if there was a change in legislation so that we could be regarded as employed persons? Not only would the Government be liable for redundancy payments, but we could sign on at the Labour Exchange, refuse to take a job not


suited to our abilities and wait until any membership fell vacant, or, in the other place, one could wait until one could be put back again as a peer. Would not that solve the problem?

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Fascinating though this is, I am afraid it is out of order.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry that I cannot develop that point, because I find it a very attractive proposition. But seriously, I should like to end with the same plea as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). The more we go into this Bill and look at the various Clauses and Amendments we are faced with, the more we try to amend it to make a bad Bill perhaps slightly less bad, the more we find ourselves in an absurd situation. It is particularly absurd because we do not know the view of the Front Bench on the other side.
My hon. Friend used some wonderful language in explaining what he thought they were. I rather thought they were like the invisible man, except that the invisible man, while he could not be seen, could be heard. In this case they could not either be seen or heard until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) came in just now. But I do say this to my hon. Friends. It is obvious that this Bill is going to be fought line by line, all the way through, for very proper reasons.
I once again appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider the whole matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) recently brought in the Parliament (No. 3) Bill, which was a very sensible and intelligent Bill. I appeal to my right hon. Friends to drop this absurdity, the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, and to adopt the sensible Bill of my hon. Friend. Let us get down to the serious business of running the country without the nonsense of this Bill.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: We have had a remarkable debate, and witty and powerful speeches have been delivered. Any attempt to under-estimate the inner feelings of nearly all hon. Members would be to proceed on a most dangerous line.
It is fantastic in a democracy to go forward with the Bill without knowing whether or not the Members of the new assembly are to be paid. No clear statement on this matter has come from the Front Bench opposite. It is an "Alice in Wonderland" situation not to know what is to be the basis of the legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has said that this is a Government Measure and has nothing to do with this side of the Committee, but it is the duty of the Front Bench on this side to discover from the Government whether or not Members will be paid. There is no question of contact between the two sides. It is simply that it is ludicrous for the House of Commons to legislate without knowing the basis of the legislation. I hope before the night is very far advanced that my right hon. Friend will press the Government to say what are their intentions. On this depends the whole nature of the other place.
It is highly unlikely that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and myself will form the next Government. The next Government must come either from the Government Front Bench or from the Opposition Front Bench, and we want to know what are their proposals as to payment should the Bill become law. Their Lordships in another place should also know what are the Government's proposals. They voted on a White Paper in which they were promised remuneration.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is quite correct; it is not a question of a bargain between the Front Benches, it is wordy pressure inside his own party which forced the Prime Minister to produce his extraordinarily ambivalent statement on Second Reading. My first point, which I am sure has the accord of the whole Committee, is that it is ludicrous for us to attempt to pass legislation the financial basis of which is unknown.
I think that we should like to discuss whether Members of another place should or should not be paid. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) enlarged on this at length, and the Government found difficulty about it. This is a problem which should be weighed perhaps for several hours. I could make a long speech about the


advantages of paying members of another place. From the constitutional point of view, there are strong arguments for paying them, but we have to balance the constitutional against the democratic and proper sense of the House of Commons as an idealist assembly. This is the great problem facing the Government and the Opposition Front Bench in weighing the pros and cons of this system.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) made an extremely brilliant, pointed and witty speech about the merits of payment. The Prime Minister indulged in this marvellously balanced tight rope argument in favour of payment, which he finally rejected.
One point should be made clear about the advantages of payment in another place—the consciences of those who are paid. It may be that this is so neatly balanced in the constitution proposed that there is a constitutional argument for paying them.
There is also the question of the poorer peers rubbing shoulders with the richer and the problem of the poor working peer and the rich or idle peer who is there as a non-voting member. There are strong arguments in favour of payment. This cannot be completely dismissed. I am sure that other hon. Members can develop these arguments in great depth and at great length.
The Committee must consider the matter not only from the point of view of making this extremely elaborate piece of mechanism work effectively, but the more profound point, if payment is made, of the patronage which will fall into the hands of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposiition. The hon. Member for Walton, when he emerged from beneath the jokes in the witty speech that he made, said, in a very fine passage which is reflected on all sides, that he is not prepared to become a "place man" of any Government or any Opposition. In that the Committee will applaud not merely the hon. Member for Walton, but those many Members on both sides who feel the same way.
The balance of the argument should be against pay, because eventually the most important thing—far more important than an effective constitution—is the question of an honest and honourable constitution. I believe that on balance

my right hon. Friend's Amendment should be accepted. This is a personal view. But what we all need is clear guidance from the Government about how they propose to work the scheme.
The Home Secretary ill-judged the feeling of the Committee. He thought that, with the bland approach of general good fellowship, he could get away with it; that it did not matter whether it was in the Bill or not. But it is essential, in my view, that it should be in the Bill. It is essential that there should be clarity in the Bill, before it goes to another place, whether members are to be paid.
That is why I ask first the Government to make this clear——

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order. Mr. Irving, may we have an assurance that there is no question of the Closure being moved.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): That is not a point of order.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: Before we get this reply I hope that my right hon. Friend will press the Government for a statement so that the formula used by the Prime Minister will be elucidated. This is not a question of a bargain between the two Front Benches. This is a question of the House of Commons functioning properly, and the House finding out what the Government's intentions are.

Mr. Onslow: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is equally important that we should know what the intentions of future Governments might be, and that this is an additional reason why we should value the opportunity of hearing the powerful speech which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) seems anxious to make?

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) asked that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) should make a powerful speech elucidating so many of the gaps in our knowledge about the nature of this compact, this bargain. I would not be so prepared to ask for a powerful speech, but I think that at some stage we are entitled, if not to know the details of the bargain—although I see no valid reason why we should not have


the whole of the bargain laid before us—to know in broad detail the limitations set by this bargain, particularly in relation to this question of remuneration.

Mr. Maudling: This is a personal point of view, because we do not have the Whips on. If people are doing a useful job, they should be paid for it.

Mr. Sheldon: That does not cover the point, because there was a compact, a bargain, or, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, an agreement, that decided certain specific matters, and the nature of those matters is unknown to Members of this House. The Home Secretary has given us some information, limited though it is. We have been without information from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maudling: I repeat that my point of view is simple. If people are doing a useful job, they should be paid appropriately for doing that. That is as far as we went in our discussions, and it is as far as I go now.

Mr. Sheldon: We are now making some progress, for which we should be extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We now know that the right hon. Gentleman and the Front Bench opposite are of the opinion that the appropriate rate for the job should be paid, and in so far as that is their view they are in favour of remuneration.
Now that the Government have retreated from remuneration, that part of the agreement has been broken. What we want to know is how the right hon. Gentleman accepts this breaking of the agreement. If this agreement has been broken, has it been broken with their approval, with their refusal, or with their antagonism? Which is it? That is what we want to know.

Mr. John Hall: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no question of any agreement having been broken? Surely, from the speech of the Home Secretary, it is obvious that all that has happened is that it has been postponed?

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Member is perfectly right if he assumes that the possibility may exist that the Front Bench opposite have not made the fuss we would have expected them to make

if there had been a breach of the agreement. The tacit acceptance of this outward change of mind may be an acceptance which has come only because afterwards the Government are going to bring in legislation for payment as in the White Paper. That may be the reason they are keeping so quiet and do not wish to be seen in evidence in this important debate.

Mr. Roebuck: Would my hon. Friend not accept that that is because the principle of payment has not been abandoned but is merely postponed and that the next question should be how much? If it is not a question of the sum fixed now, it should be what it will be in five years or so.

Mr. Sheldon: There is every reason to believe that the figure was fixed at £2,000 a year. One result of co-operation between the two Front Benches is that it shows some of the appalling errors which could result from a coalition, and we find the planning together of so many important things by the Front Benches being opposed by the unlikely combination of the back benches in this House. That is one lesson to be learnt, that coalition Governments "are not on," the contrary of what Mr. Cecil King has said.

Mr. Ridley: It appears that there is a second bargain in existence to be connived at—the apparent dropping of pay now, for it to be reinstated as soon as the hubbub has died down, and the fuss is over.

Mr. Sheldon: That is the trouble which occurs as soon as one starts secret bargains in anything and as soon as there is a private arrangement between people meeting in private when one knows——

Mr. Maudling: This talk of secret bargains is nonsense. The discussions were laid out clearly in the White Paper which contained the entirety of the things we discussed and agreed.

Sir John Rodgers: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the original figure was the one in the White Paper?

Mr. Maudling: No. It was not discussed.

Mr. Sheldon: We know now that the White Paper represents their views, and that is a step forward. It is relevant to part of the Amendment to know the level of remuneration.
If it was not discussed, what must have been was the Government decision to back down from remuneration, because the right hon. Member for Barnet said earlier that the rate for the job must be paid, whatever it might be. Clearly the Government have backed down from this part of the agreement.

Mr. Maudling: Mr. Maudling indicated assent.

Mr. Sheldon: Was the right hon. Gentleman informed? Does he feel badly about it?

Mr. Maudling: Not more than usual.

Mr. John Hall: Is not the hon. Gentleman being a little unfair to his own Front Bench? A rate for the job must be scientifically assessed and properly considered by an outside body. We know the number of cases now before the Prices and Incomes Board. Is it not probable that it is because they are waiting in the queue to go before Aubrey Jones and his Board that it is not possible at this stage to write the amount into the Bill? It could be more than £2,000, in which case, it could have a beneficial effect on the salaries of hon. Members.

Mr. Sheldon: I take the point, but the important thing is this breach of confidence between the two Front Benches, which should be widened, in the interests of the Committee and Parliament. Since the right hon. Gentleman now accepts that there was a breach, because of the Government backing down, what representations did they make to the Government? Have there been any other breaches, or does the Bill represent the agreement as envisaged by the right hon. Gentleman? Would he care to come in on this?

Mr. Maudling: Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.

Mr. Sheldon: Well, with one appearance on one Amendment, we are making some progress and it might be elaborated later. Before the Bill goes through, if it does, the whole agreement might be laid bare, to the benefit of the Committee.

The question of remuneration has been rightly called the kernel of the debate. The White Paper presumes that there will be payment and that the size of the new House will be 230 peers——

Sir Douglas Glover: That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Sheldon: But the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the White Paper represents the agreement, so this is obviously the figure which they had in mind, although they could not put it in the Bill——

Mr. Powell: But is the hon. Gentleman right in saying that the figure of 230 is part of the agreement? Paragraph 46 says that the size is put forward only tentatively and is prefaced by the words:
… the Government considers that in the first instance a reasonable size would be between 200 and 250.…
Is it right to say that the figure of 230, which is used as a specimen, is part of the agreement?

Mr. Sheldon: But it is more precisely defined later in that same paragraph:
The voting House would therefore consist at first of about 230 peers"—

Hon. Members: "At first".

Mr. Sheldon: Clearly, subsequently, there may be further arrangements, discussions and bargains between the two Front Benches.

Mr. Powell: But surely, those later words are all subordinate to the beginning of the paragraph, which makes it clear that the whole thing is put forward tentatively and on the Government's responsibility. The whole thing reads together.

Mr. Sheldon: The paragraph says "between 200 and 250", made more precise at 230. The extent to which the Front Benches agreed to what figures is not too important.

Mr. Iremonger: Is not the explanation of the very imprecise nature of the figure in the White Paper the fact that every time there is a change of Government there will have to be a topping up, and that therefore a firm figure cannot be laid down? The figure will go on increasing. If there is an election every year we shall end up with about 1,000 Members in the other place.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon: That is not exactly how it works. Reliance is placed on selecting people old enough to die off quickly enough to keep down the numbers as required.

Mr. John Hall: If the hon. Member is right in saying that the Government rely upon a certain number of peers dying off in order to prevent the need for excessive topping-up, will it not be a matter of considerable alarm if one is nominated to the other place?

Mr. Sheldon: These are matters which I ought perhaps not to go into.
The importance of the size of the other House depends very much on whether its Members are paid or unpaid. This question was dealt with in an earlier Amendment. If 230 is the number which the Government consider to be right if Members are paid the reasonable rate for the job, clearly it would not be the right number required if they are not paid. There must be a difference. Since the agreement assumed that with the appropriate rate being paid 230 would be about the right figure, if there were to be no payment the figure would have to be increased.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) put the matter correctly when, in an earlier debate, he said that if they are not to be paid some of them will need to spend more of their working time earning a living. Fewer people will be attracted to spending the whole day in the other place, when they could be earning money elsewhere, and many more would find interests outside and come to the Lords only occasionally. The offer of £2,000 a year makes a very big difference, even to moderately wealthy people, in terms of the amount of time they would be prepared to spend in the House of Lords dealing with legislation.
If the White Paper has led people to understand that Members of the other place would be paid about £2,000 a year, the fact that the Government have now withdrawn that offer must mean that the number of Members for the other place cannot remain at 230; it must rise. It makes nonsense of the White Paper to keep to the same figure.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Does not the hon. Member consider that

the withdrawal of the offer of payment is in direct conflict with the purposes of the Preamble? The Preamble insists upon the inclusion of voting peers from the various countries, nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Hitherto the hon. Member has spoken as though everybody were London-based. Surely Members of the other place must be paid if they come from 200 or 300 miles away—because they cannot live otherwise.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. and learned Member has made a valid point, which I had intended to use if I were lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Irving, on the next Amendment, when we shall be discussing the question of the number coming from Scotland and the very problems to which the hon. and learned Member has referred.

Mr. Roebuck: My hon. Friend shares with me a great interest in national economy and the need to keep prices down. Does not he think that in view of what has been said about the necessity to appoint older people so as not to have excessive topping-up, instead of giving the Members of the other place a salary it would be better to arrange to pay them an annuity? Would not that be much cheaper?

Mr. Sheldon: When one considers the question of constitution making one finds one has an infinite number of constitutions to consider.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the next Amendment deals with people residing in Scotland, and not coming from Scotland? We shall be left with a liability.

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend has a point there, which no doubt we can discuss later on.
I come now to the question of why the salary of £2,000 was mooted and why nobody I have spoken to ever seems to recall who mentioned the figure of £2,000. My own explanation about the figure of £2,000 is that it is based on a rather surprising coincidence.
If one takes the £3,250 a year paid to Members of Parliament and deducts the expenses of £1,250 which we are allowed, one finds oneself with £2,000 representing the average income after expenses. If


one also takes into account the figure arrived at as a result of the recent conference held in this House only last week, where the range of expenses of hon. Members was between £1,000 and £1,500, one again comes to a figure of about £2,000 a year. It would be rather unlikely if this figure were a coincidence.
What appears to be in the mind of the Government, and possibly in the mind of the Opposition, is to have the same figure, after deducting expenses, for the House of Commons and for the House of Lords. Some serious consequences flow from such a situation. The House of Lords would be rated every bit as high as the House of Commons, for four days a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three days."] Very well, for three days a week, for far less work and with far less responsibility than that borne by the House of Commons.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Hon. Members: No.

The Chairman: Order. I must put the Question.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

Mr. Sheldon (seated and covered): On a point of order. I had not sat down. I had not concluded my speech, which was not intended to be a long one. I had given way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

The Chairman: The Motion that was addressed to me was a point of order, which was quite in order during an hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Roebuck (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. In view of the fact that a clear misunderstanding has arisen inasmuch as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) rose under the misapprehension that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) had sat clown, and that ordinarily we all know that he is a person who well knows the customs of the House—he would not have done this had he not thought my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had sat down—would you

not think it appropriate to reconsider the matter and at least to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham to explain himself to the House?

The Chairman: I can only consider whether what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) did was in order, and I must say that it was.

Mr. John Hal (seated and covered): On a point of order. Is it not without precedent in the House of Commons that the Closure should be moved in the midst of an hon. Member's speech? Can any hon. Member recall such a thing happening?

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman: Order. I must proceed with the Division.

Sir J. Rodgers (seated and covered): On a point of order——

The Chairman: Order. I can listen to further points of order after I have taken the tellers.

Hon. Members: No.

Sir J. Rodgers (seated and covered): On a point of order. Can you recall a previous occasion, Mr. Irving, when an hon. Member has been cut off in the middle of a speech for the Closure to be moved, without the Government having replied to the debate? I have never known this to happen in the whole of my time in this place and I therefore ask you to reconsider your decision that a Division be called.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Order. I have already indicated that what the hon. Member for Rotherham did was perfectly in order. I have accepted it and I must proceed with the Division.

Sir D. Glover (seated and covered): On a point of order. I wish formally to give notice that I shall take the only step open to a back bencher to draw the attention of the House of Commons to our reflection on the Ruling of the Chair.

The Chairman: I cannot allow the decision of the Chair to be questioned.

Sir Harmar Nicholls(seated and covered): On a point of order. Before it is too late, Mr. Irving, may I urge you to reconsider your decision before the Division is reported? Are you aware that you will be setting a precedent in accepting a Closure Motion moved in the middle of an hon. Member's speech? One can accept that the Chair might consider that sufficient time had been spent on an Amendment, but are you aware that by accepting the Closure moved in this way, we are setting a precedent which will be bad for Parliament? Will you therefore reconsider your decision?

The Chairman: I am sorry, no. I must reiterate what I have already told the Committee—that what has happened is perfectly in order.

Mr. Roebuck (seated and covered): On a point of order. Have you received any explanation, Mr. Irving, for the extraordinary behaviour of the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), in seeking to move the Closure when my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was on his feet? Has any explanation whatever been offered for this quite unprecedented and extraordinary conduct which will clearly set a precedent?

The Chairman: The Chair can only consider whether what the hon. Member for Rotherham did was in order. It was in order and I cannot add further to what I have said.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme(seated and covered): On a point of order. Can you tell the Committee, Mr. Irving, what right of redress we have for this action of the Government and your own action in accepting the Closure at this time?

The Chairman: Order. The conduct of the Government is not the responsibility of the Chair.

Mr. Orme (seated and covered): Can you explain, Mr. Irving, why the Chair accepted the Closure in these circumstances?

The Chairman: Order. I cannot enter into discussion about the exercise of discretion by the Chair.

Mr. John Hall (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Irving. I hope you can hear me against the background of noise.

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member making a submission on a point of order with which I have already dealt?

Mr. Hall (seated and covered): I do not know because I could not hear what you were dealing with, Mr. Irving. Accepting the fact that you accepted the Motion for the Closure although unprecedented in this Committee—and I cannot remember a Closure being moved in the midst of somebody's speech and before there was an answer at all—but accepting all that, can we, for the future guidance of the Committee, learn from you whether it is in order for the Chief Whip or any Whip on the Government side to move the Closure in the circumstances already described, at any time during debate, and whether or not there has been a reply from either Front Bench, in the middle of a speech, with the hon. Member on his feet? Can we learn whether this is permissible or not, for the guidance of our future conduct?

The Chairman: The question of a reply is for the Government. The question whether what was done was in order is a matter for the Chair. I have already and several times said that in my opinion it was in order.

The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 89.

Division No. 89.]
AYES
[11.40 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Crawshaw, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Brooks, Edwin
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Archer, Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Bob (N 'c' tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dalyell, Tam


Beaney, Alan
Buchan, Norman
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Binns, John
Carmichael, Neil
Dell, Edmund


Bishop, E. S.
Coe, Denis
Dempsey, James


Blackburn, F.
Coleman, Donald
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Boyden, James
Conlan, Bernard
Doig, Peter




Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jackson, Colin (B'house & Spenb'gh)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Ellis, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman


English, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Ensor, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Probert, Arthur


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles
Rees, Merlyn


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Luard, Evan
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Fernyhough, E.
Lubbock, Eric
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. p'c'as)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Rowlands, E.


Forrester, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gordon Walter, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Manuel, Archie
Silverman, Julius


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marks, Kenneth
Skeffington, Arthur


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Small, William


Gregory, Arnold
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Taverne, Dick


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hannan, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Tinn, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Urwin, T. W.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hazell, Bert
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hilton, W. S.
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hooley, Frank
Murray, Albert
White, Mrs. [...]


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Howie, W.
O'Malley, Brian
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hoy, James
Oram, Albert E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice



Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Joseph Harper and



Palmer, Arthur
Mr. J. D. Concannon




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Onslow, Cranley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Paget, R. T.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Pardoe, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Hay, John
Pym, Francis


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Heffer, Eric S.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Booth, Albert
Hooson, Emiyn
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Iremonger, T. L.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roebuck, Roy


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clegg, Walter
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Sheldon, Robert


Corfield, F. V.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Crowder, F. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewie, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Tapsell, Peter


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Waddington, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Ward Dame Irene


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Wright, Esmond


Farr, John
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foster, Sir John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Airey Neave and


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Peter Kirk

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Order. I am required by the Standing Orders now to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 77, Noes 129.

Division No. 90.]
AYES
[11.49 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bossom, Sir Clive


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biffen, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Biggs-Davison, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Clegg, Walter


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Booth, Albert
Corfield, F. V.




Crouch, David
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dance, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roebuck, Roy


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sheldon, Robert


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Tapsell, Peter


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, David
Waddington, David


Foster, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Murton, Oscar
Wright, Esmond


Clover, Sir Douglas
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wylie, N. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Norwood, Christopher
Younger, Hn. George


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Onslow, Cranley



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Airey Neave and


Heffer, Eric S.
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Peter Kirk.


Hooson, Emlyn
Pardoe, John



Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Percival, Ian



Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch





NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Anderson, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Archer, Peter
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Moyle, Roland


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Murray, Albert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ogden, Eric


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gregory, Arnold
O'Malley, Brian


Binns, John
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Oram, Albert E.


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Orbach, Maurice


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oswald, Thomas


Boyden, James
Hannan, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Brooks, Edwin
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hazell, Bert
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hilton, W. S.
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Hooley, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howie, W.
Rees, Merlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Hoy, James
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Coe, Denis
Huckfield, Leslie
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rowlands, E.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)




Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Dell, Edmund
Luard, Evan
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dempsey, James
Lubbock, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McBride, Neil
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Macdonald, A. H.
Tinn, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
McNamara. J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edward (Dearne Valley)


Ensor, David
Manuel, Archie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Foley, Maurice
Millan, Bruce



Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Fowler, Gerry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. J. D. Concannon.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. It is clear to everyone who saw what happened before the Division on the Motion for the Closure was called that most unfortunate circumstances had arisen and that we should try to overcome them in a manner which does not do any injury to the Committee.

Perhaps I can briefly outline, for the benefit of those who were not here, what happened.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was in the midst of his speech. He then gave way to one of my hon. Friends, as he had given way on a number of occasions.


Then my hon. Friend the Lord Commissioner of the Treasury, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), moved the Closure, supposing, I think, that my hon. Friend the Member for Aston-under-Lyne had resumed his seat at the end of his speech when, in fact, all he had done was give way to another hon. Member for an intervention.
When that occurred, many of us urged that it would be possible for the Motion to be withdrawn because none of us believed that it was the desire of the Whips to move the Closure in the midst of my hon. Friend's speech. You then accepted the Motion and certainly my assumption was that you, too, believed that my hon. Friend had resumed his seat at the end of his speech, for otherwise I do not believe that it would have been right in such circumstances for the Chair—and I say this with respect—to have accepted the Motion, although we know that it is completely within its discretion to do so.
I think that I have described fairly what occurred and what led to circumstances which no one in the Committee would desire. Certainly it would be unfortunate if, as a result of these circumstances, there were to be a clash between hon. Members and the Chair.
12 midnight
That might occur if we were to proceed on this basis. It is quite evident that there has been a misunderstanding. Therefore, partly for that reason—it would be better, it would be a way in which the Front Bench could make a statement about it, and put the matter in order—I consider that this would be a proper moment, and this is my main point of order, for me to propose
That the Committee do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
On that Motion, if it were accepted, I could make a few remarks, the Government spokesman could do likewise, and we might even have a word from the Opposition Front Bench.
I seriously suggest that in the interests of the Committee it would be better to deal with this question on the Motion I am now seeking leave to move, rather than by points of order, which might or might not be genuine. In any case, at this hour, this would be the best way to serve the Committee.

The Chairman: Order. I ought to say first of all that the Chair takes, and did take, into account all the circumstances in accepting the Question that was put to it. I really cannot add anything to that. To discuss it on the Motion that the hon. Gentleman proposes would be out of order anyway, because that would be questioning the discretion of the Chair in the exercise of its responsibility under Standing Orders. I am afraid that at this point I cannot accept the hon. Member's submission.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman: Order, Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. I am sure that you have the sympathy of the entire Committee in the very difficult position in which you have been placed by the extraordinary conduct of the Whips.

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What I want to ask, for my clarification, because there may be other hon. Members fully aware of the point of order underlying the decision which you made, is whether it is normal and traditional for the Closure to be moved when a speaker is still in the course of his speech, when the Committee stage of a Bill is on the Floor of the House. I gather that it is in order in Standing Committee upstairs—[Interruption.] I hear an hon. Friend telling me that it is not in order. This is exactly what I want to know. What is in order and what is normal? What is traditional and decent, according to the customs of this House in Committee, whether upstairs or on the Floor of the House?

The Chairman: Order. I have already dealt with this point of order. I cannot comment on the action of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley). I can only say that it was in order, and that the Closure is a point of order and therefore takes precedence against and over an hon. Member who has the floor. I cannot——

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman: Order. I really have dealt with this point of order. I cannot hear further points on matters with which I have dealt.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order. Can you help the Committee by suggesting to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), who showed a little too much zeal in moving the Closure, that he might correct this error by making a statement to the Committee to the effect that he was not being discourteous to my hon. Friend? This is an important point.
There are many of us on the back benches who want jealously to guard against criticism of the Chair, but we want to be absolutely sure that these matters are being conducted in a completely fair manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In the light of that, Mr. Irving—I am not making the criticism but I should like you to assure me on the point—I hope that you can allay the fears which some of us have, since not only have we just had this incident but you have refused to accept the Motion to report Progress proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Perhaps you might explain to us, as back-benchers, how our rights can be safeguarded. This is vital for us in a democratic Chamber, and we feel that those rights have been usurped by the Front Bench——

The Chairman: Order. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with care. I am grateful for his forbearance in not wishing to criticise the decision of the Chair. I cannot give a direction to the hon. Member for Rotherham. I can accept his proposal. This I did. It was perfectly in order. I hope that the Committee can now make some progress.

Hon. Members: On a point of order——

The Chairman: Order. I cannot hear further on a point of order with which I have dealt.

Mr. Powell: On a further and different point of order, Mr. Irving. I understood you to say, in dealing with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), that you had taken into account the circumstances which he described. May I respectfully put to you that, in deciding in its discretion whether to accept a Motion for the Closure, the Chair would be in a difficult position, which might create a difficult precedent for the Chair in future,

if it were required to decide, among other things, whether the Motion had been moved in error by the hon. Member who rose to move it. Therefore, would it not be appropriate, if an error has occurred, that the Government and the Leader of the House should relieve you of the difficulty to which I have sought to draw attention by themselves acting in such a way as to remedy what has happened?

The Chairman: In making a decision from the Chair I cannot take into account the motives or intention of an hon. Member who makes the submission. I can only take into account the factors which are presented to the Chair for its decision. What the Government do is not for the Chair.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. I put it to you, with great respect, that the Committee is in a state of utter confusion as a result of what has happened. Could you do something to clarify it? As in the British constitution, there are some things which are written down and there are some which come to be regarded as conventions and which in themselves become almost rules. It occurs to many of us that what has happened tonight has been a complete breach of what has come to be regarded as a convention. Is there some way by which the matter can be immediately clarified, for the good of the House as a whole, so that we may understand the position in future?
In this connection, may I draw your attention to the fact that, after my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) had moved the Closure, I raised a point of order to the effect that he may well have been under a misapprehension and to ask, in that case, whether it would be appropriate for him to draw your attention to it and seek leave to withdraw the words which he had uttered. I never had an answer on that precise point. I wonder whether you could now deal with it, Mr. Irving——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating the point which I dealt with previously. I cannot say more than I have said already, save to add that the question of the interruption of an hon. Member's speech arises about once a week in the House at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Roebuck: I had not finished my point of order.

The Chairman: Order. I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that I had already dealt with the substance of his point of order. Mr. Hugh Fraser.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. I had not finished my point of order.

The Chairman: I interrupted the hon. Member, but I cannot hear him now if he is reiterating a point of order with which I have already dealt.

Mr. Roebuck: If you would listen to me, Mr. Irving, you would hear that I am not reiterating anything. Far from reiterating, I am not even iterating. As a number of the procedures and customs of the House have been altered, inasmuch as, apparently, the Whips are no longer mute like swans, would it be out of order if my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) went to the Box and explained himself?

The Chairman: I cannot allow that.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of Order. I am sure that the whole Committee has great sympathy with you, Mr. Irving, in the difficult conduct of our affairs at this juncture. I hope that we shall be able to proceed, as that is obviously the wish of the Committee. There was clearly an act of inadvertence by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley). Would not the simplest solution be for the hon. Member to explain that it was an act of inadvertence and that he did not wish to interrupt the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)?

The Chairman: The right hon. Member has just repeated what has already been said. I think that I ought to call the next Amendment.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. May I respectfully return to the reply which you gave to my point of order earlier, Mr. Irving? When I asked whether you would accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, I understood you to reply, as I had mentioned the Ruling by the Chair, that on that: Motion it would be improper to discuss the decision of the Chair. Of course I immediately acknowledge that it would be absolutely out of order. However, I submit that what would be in

order on such a Motion, and these devices are arranged partly for these purposes, would be to discuss the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley).
Moreover, I submit that if you enabled me to move such a Motion, which I would have thought in any case would be reasonable at this hour of the night, it would be possible for the matter to be cleared up and it would be possible for the Leader of the House, or the Home Secretary, who has been in charge of the Bill, to make a submission on behalf of the Government dealing with the question. I am sure that the Government would wish to say that it was not their desire that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) should be interrupted. If we were to deal with it in that way, we should avoid the problem of whether a Closure Motion should be accepted at such a time. I seriously suggest that it would be in accordance with previous practice for a Motion to report Progress to be moved, and it would assist the Committee to avoid what might otherwise be a much more serious crisis of procedure.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now arguing about the decision of the Chair. I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that I could not accept his submission at this stage.

Mr. Hooson: As your Ruling creates a very important precedent, Mr. Irving, one of the points which is troubling the Committee is the Ruling which you gave to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) on his first point of order when you said that in accepting the Motion for the Closure you took account of the circumstances. Do we understand from that that you appreciated that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has just given way and had not completed his speech? That was the circumstance which disturbed the Committee, and it is very important that this point should be cleared up.

12.15 a.m.

The Chairman: Order. I was not referring to the particular circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. I was referring to all the circumstances that must be taken into account by the Chair in deciding whether to accept a Closure.

Hon. Members: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Mr. John Hall.

Mr. John Hall: There are two points which I wish to draw to your attention. The first is in reference to the proposal advanced to you by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the Committee do report Progress.
May I suggest another reason for your consideration? There is no doubt at all that the Committee feels considerably, and I think rightly, aggrieved by the events of the last 20 minutes or so. There is, I think, doubt and suspicion in the minds of both sides of the Committee about the future possible action of the Government Front Bench, and it is probably true to say that the probability of getting business through at a reasonable pace during the rest of this night is now very remote because of the atmosphere generated by the very ill-advised action of the Whip.
In view of all these circumstances, and because both sides of the Committee want to make progress under the right conditions—conditions in which they are able to give reasoned consideration to the very important Amendments yet to come before us—I would suggest that it would be wise to accept the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and for the Committee to report Progress.
My second point of order is this. I do not know whether it has been brought to your notice, but during the last Division the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), almost got through the Aye Lobby. I think he got as far as having his name ticked off, although he did not get through the door. May I ask that in these circumstances at least half the vote be given to the Ayes?

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that I cannot make a comment on the hon. Gentleman's last statement. As far as the first is concerned, he is really only arguing a decision of the Chair. We must make some progress, and then I will be able to consider whether at another stage I can accept the Motion which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale wished to move.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. In reply to a point of order from an hon. Member opposite, I understood you to say that no precedent had been created on this occasion because it was quite common for this to happen at 10 o'clock. I would respectfully submit that the circumstances are in no way similar, and that this cannot be relevant.
If you were referring to the suspension of the Rule, of course the debate then continues and the hon. Member who has the floor continues to speak. If you were referring to an occasion when an hon. Member would otherwise talk the debate out, and the debate would automatically lapse at 10 o'clock, this again has no relevance to the present situation because the debate would not have lapsed at 10 o'clock if the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) had been allowed to complete his speech.

The Chairman: Order. I was not arguing in support of my decision, and I do not propose to do that. I was merely giving an instance of when an hon. Member's speech can be interrupted.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I would not persist in raising this point of order, Mr. Irving, but I feel a deep sense of guilt because I believe that my action in attempting to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was the cause of all the disturbance. May I explain that I rose only because the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was arguing about the £2,000 a year for peers, and I was attempting to intervene to show that the Scottish peers whom I represent would never be content with £2,000 a year.
When I rose, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne courteously sat down, and I believe that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) thought that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had come to his peroration and, under this misapprehension, he moved a Closure. I do not question your Ruling. Mr. Irving, I do not want to go into past history, but this may be a precedent, and where an hon. Member courteously gives way to an intervention, he should not be penalised by having his peroration punctured.

The Chairman: I should like to relieve the hon. Gentleman of a sense of


guilt. It made no difference that the hon. Member gave way. It would have been perfectly in order for the hon. Member for Rotherham to intervene while the hon. Member had the Floor. The Chair can only consider whether a matter that is before it is in order in accordance with Standing Orders. I think that we ought now to make progress.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman: Order. Mr. Younger, Amendment No. 156.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman: Order. I have dealt at great length with a point of order. I cannot hear anything that is a reiteration of what has already been said. If the Committee wants to make progress in order to allow the acceptance of a Motion similar to that moved by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, I suggest it allows——

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman: Order. I suggest that it allows a debate on Amendment No. 156.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. This is a completely new one. It may or may not be true, but is it in order for the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) to say that this is nothing but a Reichstag?

Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Mr. Jopling.

Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order——

The Chairman: The Chair did not hear that. I do not know if the hon. Member needs to follow it up.

Mr. Jopling: On a point of order. I think that the Committee has been put in considerable difficulty in view of this Ruling. You have been asked a question, Mr. Irving, which, with great respect, the Committee must understand——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has asked a question in a form of words which makes it clear that it is one which I have already been asked.

He cannot proceed on that point of order.

Mr. Roebuck: Could I perhaps say that I did not say——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member prefaced his remark with a phrase which indicated that he was about to put the same matter to me. He cannot do that.

Mr. Jopling: On a point of order. If the Committee is to proceed, it is essential to know how the Chair will react to Closures which may be put. You have already stated, Mr. Irving, that it is within the rules of order for a Closure Motion——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is reflecting on the exercise by the Chair of the discretion in the Standing Order. He cannot do that.

Mr. Jopling: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Not even on a point of order.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. I think perhaps that I should seek to correct what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). I did not say, "This is nothing but a Reichstag", and I was not engaging in any reflection on the Committee. It was merely a historical reflection referring to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) appeared to be sitting for the constituency of East Berlin.

Sir J. Rodgers: On a point of order. I wonder whether you could help us, Mr. Irving, by clarifying a certain point. I am sure that we are all disturbed at what happened about half an hour ago when the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was speaking and the Closure was moved when he had just sat down to allow an intervention. I ask for guidance. Would it be in order for hon. Members on either side to move the Closure when the Front Bench spokesman has started to reply to any points in the debate?

The Chairman: It would be perfectly in order for an hon. Member to raise a point of order and to seek to move the Closure. As in all requests for the Closure, it is for the Chair to decide whether it should be accepted.

Mr. Howie: On a point of order. Some of us have shown consistent interest in the Bill. I have noticed that some of the points of order have been raised by Members who are no more than squatters. In the interests of all those Members who are concerned about the progress of this very important constitutional Measure, I think that we should hear those parts of the Bill which are of peculiar interest to Scotland——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Howie: —in which I and some of my constituents have an interest. I think that the Committee should now permit the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to move his Amendment.

The Chairman: I hope that the Committee will accept the hon. Member's advice and allow the hon. Member for Ayr to proceed.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. Is it not of some importance to the Committee to establish what happened—whether the Closure was moved by accident or on purpose—and how it might have been avoided? The Committee will accept that, once it has been moved, you, Mr. Irving, may well have no choice but to accept it. If the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) had simply made a stupid mistake it was open to him, when the Question was put again from the Chair, not to challenge it and to let the Division drop. But it is clear that he acted quite deliberately.

The Chairman: Procedurally the hon. Member is correct.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order. I wonder whether I might seek the guidance of the Chair about future arrangements. I understood you to say that the moving of the Closure per se is as such a point of order. Suppose an hon. Member has the Floor, and another hon. Member wishes to move the Closure. Does not he have to precede it with the words "On a point of order"? He cannot merely get up and move the Closure, and thereby establish a point of order in law. To get the hon. Member who has the Floor off his feet he must use the words, which were not used in this instance, "On a point of order".

12.30 a.m.

The Chairman: The practice of the House is not always to preface the application for the Closure with the words "On a point of order", but it loses none of its validity for that. I hope that hon. Members will now allow us to make progress.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Mr. Irving, there is a vital principle involved here. As you have established that it was in order for the Closure to be moved, it means that we come very near to having to comment on the conduct of the Chair, and we are left with no alternative. We recognise to the full your skill and leadership in the Chair in the past, and we do not want in this instance to bring you into this, but I see no alternative in view of the Ruling you have given. Is it possible to ask for the Mace to be placed on the Table and for Mr. Speaker to be summoned so that we might get a Ruling from the Chair on a matter which might otherwise completely pervert the normal usages of Parliament?

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his appreciation of my difficulties. Mr. Speaker has no control over what happens in a Committee of the whole House. I think that we must proceed.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was speaking at 10 o'clock, and his speech was interrupted. The Government led the Committee into the Lobby to enable him to continue his speech so that we could hear it to the end. Later they moved the Closure in the middle of the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and voted him down. It seems illogical that the Government should vote to continue the speech of one of their hon. Friends, and then vote to stop hearing another of their hon. Friends.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Member is not raising a point of order that is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order. We have been deprived of hearing the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.

The Chairman: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Clegg: On a point of order, Mr. Irving, you have indicated that it is possible for a Front Bencher to stop the speech of a back bencher. How can a back bencher stop the speech of a Front Bencher?

The Chairman: It is open to back benchers to use the provisions of the Standing Order in the same way as Front Benchers do. I cannot rule on a hypothetical situation.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order. Is it not in keeping with the best traditions of the House that in a procedural impasse which seems to have the features of a precedent, if the Leader of the House is present it is fitting that he should make a statement?

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. I am sure it is correct that the decision to accept or reject a Motion to report Progress is entirely within the discretion of the Chair. I asked leave at about five minutes to twelve to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again", because I had a suspicion that there might be serious difficulties which would prevent further discussion of the Bill. At that time it was only a suspicion.
The suspicion has now turned to a fact and I therefore suggest that it would be perfectly open to you to accept my submission now and I would add in support of my submission that on occasions when I recall that there have been disturbed feelings, this has been one way of dealing with it and it is precisely why the device exists. I am not questioning the proceedings of the Chair. Such matters should be conducted according to the rules of order and therefore I respectfully ask, in the interests of the House, that I might now have leave.

The Chairman: I have already refused the hon. Member's submission. I cannot as yet accept a submission I have so recently refused. I can only advise him that the best way he can get his Motion accepted; n one way or another is to help the Committee to make some progress.

Mr. David Steel: You have been placed in extreme difficulty, Mr. Irving. Is it not right that we should press the Leader of the House to make a statement that the Government moved the Motion under a misapprehension and do not regard it as a matter of precedent?

The Chairman: I have ruled on that. The action of the Government is not a matter for the Chair.

Sir Charles Taylor: I am deeply troubled by what has happened in the Committee this evening. [Interruption.] Yes, because I know that there is a precedent in another place where one can move that a noble Lord be no longer heard. But I have never heard a Closure moved in this House in the middle of an hon. Member's speech. I ask if it would be in order now to ask Mr. Speaker to tell us tomorrow what the precedents are and what Erskine May has to say about this, because it destroys one of the liberties and priviliges of Members of this House.

The Chairman: I have already ruled on that point of order. Mr. Crouch.

Sir Charles Taylor: I asked if Mr. Speaker could rule tomorrow.

Hon. Members: Today.

Sir Charles Taylor: I beg pardon. Today—later today—and give us precedents for a similar situation to this and also say what Erskine May says about this.

The Chairman: I understand what the hon. Member says, but I cannot help him further.

Mr. David Crouch: You have asked the Committee to make Progress, Mr. Irvine, but the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has asked us to report Progress. That is a much more sensible suggestion. We have heard absolutely nothing from the Government Front Bench who stand accused of stopping this debate in the middle of a most important suggestion from the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

The Chairman: I have already been addressed on that point of order and what I said to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was that if he wished to have


the Motion accepted, the Chair would require some progress. That is a matter of fact. I cannot hear the hon. Member further, because he is, on the one hand, criticising the Chair and, on the other, dealing with a point of order which I have already disposed of.

Mr. Crouch: Further to that point of order. I did not wish to criticise the Chair——

The Chairman: Order. Mr. Younger.

Mr. George Younger: Mr. George Younger (Ayr) rose——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order——

The Chairman: Order. I have already heard the hon. Member on a point of order. Mr. Younger.

Mr. Younger: Mr. Younger rose——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order——

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order. You have told the Committee, Mr. Irving, and it will accept your assurance, naturally, with gratitude, that, in ruling on points of order, you take into account all the circumstances in the interests of the Committee and of Parliament. One of the circumstances which you would be bound to take into account is that the Committee is in the course of considering a Bill of major constitutional importance——

The Chairman: Order. I said that I took into account all the circumstances. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to reopen this matter.

Mr. Iremonger: Mr. Iremonger rose——

The Chairman: Order. Mr. Younger.

Mr. Younger: Mr. Younger rose——

Mr. Iremonger: My point of order——

The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members will allow the debate to proceed.

Mr. Iremonger: My point of order——

The Chairman: Order. I have disposed of the hon. Member's point of order.

Mr. Iremonger: I had not reached it, Mr. Irving.

The Chairman: That may be so, but nothing that the hon. Member has said in addressing me suggested to me that he was doing anything else but raising a point of order which I had already disposed of.

Mr. Iremonger: On a different point of order. My point of order was about to be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—Do I take it, Mr. Irving, that I have not the right to raise a point of order?—[HON. MEMBERS: Of course you have.]——

The Chairman: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Iremonger: My point of order is that it is now apparent, as it must be apparent to you, Mr. Irving, that, without a Motion for the Guillotine being officially moved, the Committee is operating under a Guillotine at the arbitrary discretion of the Government Whips. As the Leader of the House is now here, would it be in order to ask him to move a Motion——

The Chairman: Order. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman is commenting on the Bill, which he cannot do on a point of order, and, on the other, he is directing a submission to the Leader of the House, which is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I want to raise a point of order which involves an injustice to Scotland. I distinctly heard you, Mr. Irving, call upon the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to move the next Amendment, which vitally affects my constituents, very important peers, who are very anxious that I should put their case. They want the Committee to consider dispassionately the rights of Scottish peers to sit in the House of Lords. As this grave matter, affecting my constituents and the whole future of the peerage in Scotland, should not be taken when the Committee is in its present state of emotion, would you now listen to the respectful and statesmanlike suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)?

The Chairman: I understand the importance of the hon. Member's submission but I cannot help him.

[Sir BARNETT JANNER in the Chair]

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 156, in page 3, line 13, at end add:
(5) At the beginning of each Session of Parliament, the Lord Chancellor shall compile a roll of the voting peers, specifying particularly those voting peers who are ordinarily resident in Scotland, and shall lay this register on the Table of the House of Lords; and if it shall appear from the said register that fewer than one-tenth of the voting peers are ordinarily resident in Scotland, the House shall by resolution pray Her Majesty to create sufficient voting peers who are ordinarily resident in Scotland, so that the total number thereof shall comprise not less than one-tenth of the total number of peers possessing full voting rights.
A more sensitive soul than I might think that the Committee had entered into a conspiracy to prevent my addressing it this evening. I must start by telling the Government Front Bench that I very much resent the circumstances in which I am now compelled to move the Amendment. From the way in which the Bill is being treated one would think that it was a minor Measure, being forced through quickly by the Government in the course of their normal electoral programme. In fact, it is the most important Bill that has come before the House in the time, that I have been in it. It effects a sweeping change in our constitution—a greater change than has taken place for much more than a hundred years, putting it fairly low. I am now compelled to introduce the Amendment at a quarter to one o'clock in the morning, when all sorts of people, certainly in Scotland and probably in other parts of the country, want to know that it has been properly discussed and will greatly resent the fact that we are compelled to discuss it in the middle of the night.
My task is made the more difficult by the fact that I have a serious speech to make. It has taken me a lot of research to prepare and it contains a lot of important points. I want an assurance from the Government Front Bench that I shall be allowed to continue my speech to the end.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): Order. The hon. Member might be good enough to come to the subject matter of his Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. Surely, Sir Barnett, there are many precedents for your predecessors in the Chair allowing a reasonable degree of comment by an hon. Member—moving what he regards as an important Amendment—objecting to the fact that under the arrangement made by the Government it is taken at a time of day when consideration is more difficult than it is at other times. I submit that my hon. Friend is in order in pointing that out.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of the House and its procedure, will know that the hon. Member was referring to the question of the Closure, which is not relevant before the Question has been proposed and cannot be moved unless the Question has been proposed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I respectfully invite your attention, Sir Barnett, to the point that I understood my hon. Friend to be making, namely, that in the atmosphere created by the unhappy events of the last three-quarters of an hour it was particularly difficult to secure the proper discussion of an Amendment of the greatest importance to Scotland. Surely my hon. Friend is in order in defending the interests of Scotland in this way.

The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I did not stop the hon. Member when he was on that point. I stopped him when he was dealing with the question of the Closure.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I respectfully suggest that you have been rather impetuous, Sir Barnett, in rebuking the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). I entirely agreed with every statement that he made in what I thought was the preamble to what will turn out to be a very interesting speech. Without challenging your Ruling, Sir Barnett, I fail to see anything that justified your telling him to come to the point, when he was dealing with a point that affects the right of all Scottish Members to have their grievances discussed at length. I suggest that, quite unwittingly and without understanding the temperament of the Scottish people, you have been rather hasty and impetuous in telling the hon. Member to come to order.

The Temporary Chairman: I am quite sure that the hon. Member does not want to criticise the Chair. I think that I was in order and right to point out, when the hon. Member was dealing with the question of Closure, that he could not deal with that particular point in consequence of the fact that Closure does not come into the question of discussion at all unless and until the Question has been proposed. I hope that we can get on.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: On a point of order. With great respect, may I put this difficulty before you? Your predecessor in the Chair recently indicated that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) were to move to report Progress, the circumstances at the time would be considered by the Chair. In the unfortunate upset a while ago, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was cut off in the middle of his speech before any reply had been given from the Government Front Bench. This Amendment is of important constitutional significance to Scotland. I hope that we can be given some guidance by you, Sir Barnett, that if the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale were to leap to his feet and to move the Closure in midstream, before any reply had been given by the Front Bench, that Motion would not then be accepted by the Chair.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Younger: I know that it is difficult when the Committee is in this sort of mood, but I am in deadly earnest when I say that I deeply resent this. This is the most inopportune time of day to have to present the Amendment.
Having made that protest, I will now endeavour to put the argument to which I hope the Committee will listen with as much patience as it can command at this hour.

Earl of Dalkeith: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that paragraph 50 of the White Paper supports him? It says that the Government attach the greatest importance to the presence of Scottish peers so that he is amply reinforced by the Government's own thinking. Therefore, it would be right to ask the Leader

of the House to be present and to be helpful to us. I suggest that a better time of day could be found for this legislation.

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friends for their support. I hope to have some indication from the Government Front Bench that I shall receive a full reply on this serious and complicated matter.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I know that I am only an English Member, but the Act of Union is of importance to England as well as to Scotland. This is a most intricate constitutional question. Does my hon. Friend think it proper that this discussion should proceed any further, in the absence of any Law Officer on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend has come to the next point I was about to make. I hope that hon. Members will not regard this discussion as affecting only Scotland. It greatly affects the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Roebuck: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that he should continue uninterrupted when the Government Whip interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) in the middle of his speech? Is this Amendment superior to the previous one?

Mr. Younger: I agree that I have a feeling of deep guilt. While I regard this Amendment as important, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had every right to regard the matter about which he was speaking as important, too.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman is already privileged. He has been interrupted several times without the Government Whip attempting to put the Question.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: On a point of order. Are not our difficulties sufficient without racialism being introduced?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I implore you, Sir Barnett, to protect the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) from frivolous interruptions from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)


and others. In the interests of Scotland, the hon. Member for Ayr should be allowed to state his case uninterrupted.

The Temporary Chairman: I am not sure that that is not a reflection on the Chair. The hon. Gentleman may feel certain that the Chair will give every protection to every hon. Member who is keeping within the rules of order.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I wish to make a personal statement. The last thing I would do is to make a reflection on you, Sir Barnett, realising that you have been such a competent Chairman for many years.

The Temporary Chairman: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Were not the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) a reflection on me, if not or. the Chair, in referring to my having nade a frivolous interruption?

The Temporary Chairman: We must get on. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Younger: It is difficult to get a serious discussion going in these circumstances. Assuming for the moment that the Bill will finally be passed, we must consider the form of representation which will take place as a result of it.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there has been an omission which I wish to put right. Subject to the approval of the Committee, it is proposed to discuss, with this Amendment, the following: Amendment No. 186 in page 3, line 8, at end insert:
Provided that a peer who is not a voting peer may vote on any question in a committee to which he is appointed and to which is referred any Bill, measure or motion relating exclusively to Scotland, or any instrument or draft instrument relating exclusively to Scotland to which section 14 or section 15 of this Act applies.

Amendment No. 187 in line 13. at end add:
(5) At the beginning of each Session of Parliament the Lord Chancellor shall compile a roll of the voting peers, specifying particularly those voting peers who are ordinarily resident in each of the standard regions of England and Wales and shall lay this register on the table: of the House of Lords; and if it shall appear from the said register that fewer than five voting peers are ordinarily resident

in each of the standard regions of England and Wales, the House shall by resolution pray Her Majesty to create sufficient voting peers so that the total number thereof shall comprise not less than five voting peers from each of the standard regions of England and Wales.

NEW CLAUSE NO. 21—SCOTTISH VOTING PEERS

Amendment No. 63 in the Preamble, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 64 in the Preamble, page 2, line 8, at end insert:
Provided always that included in that House and in the said body of voting members there shall normally be not less than one-tenth of those members who are domiciled in Scotland.

Mr. Clegg: On a point of order. Would it be in order, Sir Barnett, to discuss the payment of Scottish and regional peers on this group of Amendments? If so, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) would be able to resume the speech in the midst of which he was so rudely interrupted by the Government Whip.

The Temporary Chairman: It is in order to discuss the Amendments and the new Clause to which I have referred.

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order. Are you aware. Sir Barnett, that it was pointed out on an earlier group of Amendments that some of them did not appear on today's Notice Paper? The same difficulty arises with Amendments Nos. 186, 63 and 64 in this group. The Chair was kind enough to read out the text of an earlier Amendment. May I ask you to do the same in this case; and as I am slow at writing, would you kindly read the text of these Amendments at dictation speed?

1.0 a.m.

The Temporary Chairman: I think the Committee consists of literate people. The Amendments have been on the Paper for quite a time and have been known for some time to the Committee. I think we ought to proceed with the debate now.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) said the Amendments were not on the Paper. Can you assure us, Sir Barnett, by telling us on which page of the Paper they are? The hon. Member, as usual, seems to be


completely wrong. He does not seem to have got his facts right. Or is the Chair wrong? I should like to be clear whether it is the hon. Member or the Chair who is wrong. Perhaps you could indicate the page on which the Amendments are.

The Temporary Chairman: It is quite simple. The Amendments have been on the Paper for some time. I am quite sure that every diligent Member knows what is contained in them, having read them on the Paper. If anyone objects to these Amendments all being taken together, that is another matter and one for the Committee. I am sure that now the Committee is anxious to hear what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has to say on what is a very important Amendment, as he says. He wants to explain his Amendment, and I hope we give him full opportunity to do so.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not for one moment suggest that this is not a very important Amendment. All I wanted to get clear was, where the Amendments are. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) says they are not on today's Notice Paper. You, Sir Barnett, have said they were and are on the Paper. All I want to know is, is the hon. Member for Ilford, North correct or incorrect? If he is correct, is that not a reflection on the Chair, since you have told us they are on the Paper and the hon. Member says they are not? May I ask you to name the page on which they are? Otherwise, I think we must object, and say they must not be discussed till they are on the Paper, because how can we discuss Amendments which are not on the Paper? I have always understood that Amendments must be on the Paper. Can you tell me on what page they are, and tell the hon. Member?

The Temporary Chairman: All the Amendments are on the Paper and have been for some time. If any hon. Member wishes that we should not with this group of Amendments discuss any one of the Amendments in particular that is an entirely different matter, but, as matters stand at present, I ask the Committee to be good enough to accept the suggestion which has been made about the grouping, because all these Amendments are relevant to the issue raised in the main one. No. 156. We really must get on.

As has already been pointed out, it is very late, and I am sure the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) wants to assist the Committee by proceeding with his speech.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. It is about the grouping you have just made of Amendments, Sir Barnett. You have included No. 186 in the group. It seems to me that No. 186 involves a somewhat different and distinct point from that on the main Amendment, No. 156, which makes a proposal about the proportion of Members of the new House of Lords who should be domiciled in Scotland, whereas the proposal in Amendment 186 relates to rights of voting of normally non-voting peers. There is no provision in that Amendment for a proportion of those peers to be domiciled in Scotland. It therefore seems to me, with great respect—and I should like to hear your Ruling on this—that the two Amendments introduce distinct and separate points. I am wondering whether we might find it less confusing if we had two separate debates on these two rather different points.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the position it I tell him that Amendment No. 186 is not selected for debate, but as a special favour from the Chair it was included in this discussion so as to enable hon. Members to say something about it. The alternative would be that it would not be debated at all.

Mr. Younger: I should be grateful if the Committee could now try to hear at any rate this portion of my argument as a single piece, because otherwise it will not be possible to make sense of it.
I produced this set of Amendments because sub-paragraph (b) of the Preamble, which lays down the background to the Bill, says:
the inclusion in that House, and in the said body of voting members, of suitable numbers of peers with knowledge of and experience in matters of special concern to the various countries, nations and regions of the United Kingdom:".
That may sound like a fairly concrete commitment by the authors of the Bill to include in the reformed House of Lords a due proportion of members from the various parts of the United Kingdom. However, this must be read in conjunction with the remarks of the


Prime Minister in his Second Reading speech on 3rd February. He said:
Similarly, there are no provisions designed specifically to secure the inclusion of a suitable number of peers with knowledge of, and experience in, matters which are of special concern to the various parts and regions of the United Kingdom.
These requirements, which are, of course, quite cardinal to the workings of the scheme, are, however, referred to in the Preamble to the Bill, and by these means they will receive statutory recognition. As the House realises, a Preamble is no longer usual in a public Bill, though it is still customary for a Bill which, like this one, is of great constitutional importance.
Those are weighty words from the Prime Minister. He added in an intervention, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) had raised the question of what these words in the Preamble mean:
I did not say that they had statutory force. I referred to the long-standing practice on major Bills of having a Preamble and said that many of the things in the White Paper would have to be done by Statute, but in other ways; for example, in connection with recommendations made by party leaders through the Prime Minister of the day to Her Majesty in respect of appointments.
And this is the real point:
The point about putting them in a Preamble … is not to make them obligatory, but to draw attention, within the Statute, to what will be the practice in the operation of the Bill for all concerned. This has a long history. It adds something to such points if they are put in the Preamble to a Measure, although they cannot be dealt with by legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 48–65.]
These words, which I imagine were also carefully weighed by the Prime Minister, mean quite simply that in this Bill, proposing to reform the Upper Chamber of our constitution, a Chamber whose composition has not been substantially reformed for a very long time, there is no statutory provision—and cannot be in the wording of the Bill as it stands, to ensure as of right that there will be representation for the various parts of the United Kingdom.
I naturally want particularly to refer to Scotland, because that is the main substance of my interest in this question, but no doubt hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom will wish to make their contributions. I tried to do this by amending the Preamble but was informed that it could not be amended unless an Amendment was made necessary by an Amendment to the body

of the Bill in Committee. This is why consideration of the Preamble is taken at the end of the Committee stage and not at the beginning. But, at the beginning of the Committee stage, the Chair ruled that it would be possible in this instance to move substantive Amendments to the Preamble, which is why one of my Amendments is an Amendment to the Preamble.
But I strongly suspected that it would not hold water for one reason or another, and I therefore put down two Amendments which would achieve exactly the same point in different parts of the Bill. One is new Clause 21 and the other is Amendment No. 156. The difficulty facing the Committee is that, even if we agree that my objective is right, it is mechanically extremely difficult to achieve as the Bill stands. I accept that one or even all my attempts to put this matter right may well not stand up to the scrutiny of the Parliamentary draftsmen, but I hope that, if this is the reply of the Minister, he will at least accept the principle and get the Parliamentary draftsmen to find a way of achieving it.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Perhaps my hon. Friend can clear up some confusion about the precise nature of the distinction between Amendment No. 156 and new Clause 21. So far as I can see, the only difference is that there is a hyphen in Amendment No. 156 between "one" and "tenth" in the first reference to "one-tenth". Has this any significance? If so, what is it? If it is the only distinction, am I right in thinking that, in other respects, the two are precisely the same? I still do not follow the reason why it was necessary to put both Amendment and new Clause down.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct. There is supposed to be no difference between the two but he, with, his usual perspicacity, has picked up a stray hyphen in one, and I apologise if it is incorrect. But the intention is to have them both exactly the same and I put both down in order to ensure that the Government got the maximum chance of accepting my purpose.
The first major reason for Amendment No. 156 is the historical and constitutional background to the representation of peers from Scotland in the House of Lords. It goes right back to the Treaty


of Union in 1707, when two entirely separate nations agreed mutually to form themselves into one.

Mr. Maude: A great mistake.

Mr. Younger: I cannot agree. It has been of immense benefit to both our countries ever since.
The Treaty of Union was a bargain entered into by the two sides, who each gained and lost something from it. We ought to think seriously before altering the basis upon which that Treaty was made. I am not arguing that there should be no change in the Treaty, but I say that it should be done after the most mature and careful consideration. Scotland gave up a separate Parliament in Edinburgh as a result of the Treaty. It did so on certain conditions, one of which was the right of Scotland to be represented in the new combined Parliament at Westminster. The matter of representation in Parliament was one of the few subjects which led to the two Commissions physically coming together to discuss the problem.
1.15 a.m.
An agreement was reached that Scotland should have the right to 45 Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, and that 16 members of the Scottish Peerage should be elected by that Peerage as a whole to represent Scottish peers in the Lords. In the Commons the Scottish element represented one-twelfth, among the English and Welsh element, which numbered 523 Members. The Lords element numbered approximately one-tenth, if one takes the total in the Lords at 161, plus 24 bishops. Accepting the bishops, for which there was no Scottish equivalent, the proportion was approximately one-tenth.
I give these figures to emphasise that this was part of a carefully worked-out package deal. These proportions compared with the proportion of population between the countries then of one in Scotland to five for England and Wales. On the other hand, when taking the other question considered by the Commissioners, the proportion of revenue raised in Scotland as compared with the proportion of revenue raised in England and Wales was, surprisingly, as little as one-fortieth in Scotland. I have gone into detail to make it clear that this was

part of a carefully balanced bargain between the two sides.

Mrs. Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman reconsider that phrase about a carefully worked out bargain? Is he aware that the signatories were induced to sign the Treaty of Union by amounts on record as bribes?

Mr. Younger: I will leave the hon. Lady, with her charming manner, to indulge in her fairy tales.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I must correct the historical inaccuracy. That story came from the papers of Lockhart, a Jacobite, and no serious Scottish historian has ever borne it out.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right. The person concerned was a thoroughly biased witness to the proceedings. But that does not alter the fact that it was a bargain, and the record speaks for itself.
We move now to much more modern times. The composition of the combined House of Lords remained untouched and unchanged, save for one minor exception, until 1963. In 1963, the reform of the other House encompassed the reform of the Scottish representation by giving all the Scottish peers the right to sit in the Lords on exactly the same terms as any other peers of the United Kingdom. It abolished the business of electing 16 Scottish peers. But the thread running throughout all these years has been that Scottish peers had representation as of right in the combined House of Lords. That is the point which leads me to the real question now before us.
We should do wrong, and we should act against the spirit of the Union, if we allowed the reform of the House of Lords now to go through without representation as of right for the representatives of Scotland. This should be a matter of concern to English and Scottish Members alike. It could do nothing but good in the reform of the House of Lords, and it ought not to be rejected without the most careful and mature consideration, with due weight given to all the precedents through history.
There is a further argument in support of our case, the sheer practical necessity of some such arrangement as we


propose. We have had argument tonight about the size of the new House of Lords, but I take about 250 Members as being the likely average size under the Bill. If one in 10 came from Scotland, there would be about 25 Scottish-based peers, that is, peers residing in Scotland and knowing what went on there.
The new House of Lords, like the present one, will have to deal with purely Scottish legislation. In this House, we have the Scottish Grand Committee, which spends a great deal of time on Scottish legislation, and we have the Scottish Standing Committee which does the same, working constantly throughout the year, two mornings a week. At the same time, the present House of Lords, with a considerable number of Scottish peers, does a great deal of useful work on Scottish Bills.
Even with 25 Scottish-based peers, will the new House of Lords be able to give the careful and detailed consideration which is necessary, week in and week out, to long, complicated and detailed Scottish Measures? All the 25 are unlikely to be available on every occasion when Scottish matters are discussed. We understand that they are not to have payment, and this will ensure that some of them are unable to be present for a large part of the time. There will obviously be peers who are sick, or who have other business to attend. On many occasions, even if my Amendment is accepted, the reformed House of Lords will be struggling to deal with complicated Scottish legislation, which is often as large as English and Welsh legislation, having just as many Clauses and with Bills just as thick. It will be struggling with as few as five or 10 members able to give the time throughout the week to this detailed work.
My proposal is modest. If one in 10 of the peers in a reformed House were not based on Scotland, there could be a serious blockage in the work of the reformed House of Lords which simply would not have enough members able and willing to undertake the great amount of work which is involved in Scottish legislation. There are two reasons for the Amendment—the constitutional and historical reason, which none of us should take lightly and which

we are in honour bound to consider, and the practical reason which is that this number will be needed at all times. The Government of the day of whichever party would have a clear statutory obligation to see that there was this one in 10 representation of peers ordinarily resident in Scotland.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but he will appreciate in the light of what happened earlier this evening that we have to get these things clear before the Question is put, and we do not know how much time we have. Do I understand it to be my hon. Friend's proposition that Scottish peers should be a flat 10 per cent. of the whole membership of the new House? He will be aware that the Government proposed that membership of the new House should be broken down in various ways—77 peers of succession, 105 Government peers, 80 main Opposition party peers, 15 other Opposition party peers, 30 cross-benchers and know nothings. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain why he does not think it necessary and desirable for his Amendment to be drafted so as to provide for 10 per cent. of each of these groups to be Scottish peers.

Mr. Younger: That is a good point. I shrank from delving into those immense complications because my Amendment was complicated enough already. Furthermore, I do not think that it would be practicable to ensure a party balance if the number of peers is to be changed every 10 minutes or so, as is proposed. It has to be accepted that it will never be clear who belongs to which party. I do not think that it will be possible for the Government to ensure a majority, but, even if it were, it would be extremely unlikely that the Government could ensure a majority among the Scottish peers alone. The numbers would not be big enough to allow for the necessary give and take in allegiance. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has in mind, but his suggestion would not be practicable.

Amendment No. 186, which the Chair has kindly allowed us to discuss at the same time, deals with voting in Committee. Even with my Amendment, it will be difficult to achieve appropriate numbers of Scottish peers, and Amendment No. 186 proposes to overcome the difficulty by allowing non-voting Scottish


peers to vote in Committee on matters which affect only Scotland.

1.30 a.m.

It may be felt that this is rather a departure of principle in the Bill, and I agree that it seems to be so at first sight. But I would reassure any doubters on this point that even if these non-voting Scottish peers were allowed to vote in Committee on Scottish matters they would not be allowed to do so, even on Scottish matters, in the House of Lords as a whole. Therefore anything their votes achieved which would be inimical to the Government of the day could, quite properly, be put right in the House as a whole on Report stage.

This Amendment is an attempt to put right what I believe could be a severe shortage of peers, who are normally resident in Scotland, to deal with Scottish business.

I should like to say something about the words "ordinarily resident in Scotland", because it may well be that some hon. Members will feel that this is too vague. How can one tell if a peer is or is not ordinarily resident in Scotland? I am advised by the most eminent legal advice that there is no difficulty whatever in establishing whether or not anybody is ordinarily resident in Scotland, or ordinarily resident anywhere else. The words already appear in Statutes and do not appear to cause any difficulty. To give just one example, if a person is selling his house, he is exempt from Capital Gains Tax if it is the house in which he is ordinarily resident. If it is not, then he will have to pay Capital Gains Tax on it.

I submit that this description "ordinarily resident" is a perfectly normal one, and perfectly easy to establish, and I see no difficulty in establishing which peers in the House of Lords are ordinarily resident in Scotland.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend may be right that it is easy to establish this, but it is a matter of very great importance and the effects are very far-reaching indeed. Can he develop this a little further in case I do not have the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Younger: I hope very much that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity

of doing so. I am not going to be drawn into a long argument on this now. I would just say to my hon. Friend that there is an important difference between being domiciled in Scotland and being ordinarily resident in Scotland. If I had put "domiciled in Scotland" in the Amendment, we should have been in trouble because it is perfectly possible for anyone of us to be domiciled somewhere where we have not lived for many years. Being domiciled is what one regards as the place one comes from——

Mr. N. R. Wylie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of case law on what is meant by "ordinarily resident"? It is well known in tax legislation, it is repeatedly used in divorce legislation, and so far it has not given rise to any of the difficulties which my hon. Friend seems to think might arise.

Mr. John Smith: In Amendment No. 156 my hon. Friend has, it is true, put "ordinarily resident", but in Amendment No. 64, which we are also discussing, he has put "domiciled".

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bowling me out again on one of these Amendments. But I have already stated that I am not sticking word for word to these Amendments. The point remains that there is a difference between "domiciled" and "ordinarily resident", on which I wish to rely this evening. I hope that this rather complicated matter has been brought to the Committee in the clearest way it can be at this time of night.
I finish with a plea to the Government Front Bench to make allowance for the time of night at which we are discussing the Amendment, and to give it the most kind consideration they can. I assure them that I would not have dreamt of bringing this suggestion forward had I not felt that a matter of important constitutional principle was involved that we should not let go by. I hope that the Government Front Bench will treat this as the serious Amendment which it is intended to be.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has put his case so reasonably and dispassionately that it is difficult not to agree with him. As one who represents a constituency near his, and also four members of the


other place, all of whom did not support me at the election, may I say that his case does not command the full support of his constituents in Ayr, nor of my constituents in South Ayrshire.
Before I come to my main point I will deal with one or two points of detail that he made in the concluding part of his speech. He wants the election of peers from Scotland, which he says is justified because the reformed House of Lords will be dealing with matters affecting Scotland which need the special attention of peers who are resident in Scotland. On these issues the talking peers would have the right to be voting peers on Scots legislation. Try to imagine what it means in practice.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman should pay careful attention to the terms of Amendment No. 186, to which he has referred. It is clear in Amendment No. 186 that the rights of what he has called the talking peers would apply only to discussions under Sections 14 or 15 of the Act, which relate to affirmative and negative Resolutions. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has allowed for that in his argument.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I have allowed for it, and I was about to develop my argument. Scottish peers will come down—especially if legislation affecting Scotland is being discussed at the time of the Derby, Ascot or the St. Leger—they will receive a salary of at least £2,000 a year, they will put in a short appearance in the House of Lords in Committee, receive expenses and will thus be a considerable burden upon the Exchequer.

Mr. Younger: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has this quite straight. Such a peer would get no expenses. To qualify for expenses, let alone a salary, peers have to attend at least one-third of the sittings, and if a peer came down, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, for one Committee only he would get nothing.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Ayr is doing the Scottish peers an injustice.

Mr. John Smith: Surely a man such as the hon. Gentleman would be a great deal more ordinarily resident than some peers, and he would have much more claim to represent the Scottish peers in London.

Mr. Hughes: I gather from the hon. Member for Ayr——

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Mr. Hugh Fraser rose——

Mr. Hughes: One peer at a time, please!

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I agree that if the Scottish peer arrived on the first day after Pontefract and did not go north again before the St. Leger, he would fill in more than a third of his time. The hon. Gentleman has a good point.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Ayr apparently wants the Scottish peers to work for nothing. He wants them to be blacklegs. I am sure that the peers I represent will strongly object to Scottish peers being asked to come to London to take part in what may be very long and contentious legislation, pay their own expenses, and not be financially rewarded in any way. It is not exactly a national characteristic of the peers living north of the Border and it is out of keeping with the historical background hinted at by the hon. Gentleman.
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has the support of the Scottish peers. What is the position in the Conservative Party at present? Where is the best known and most respected right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)?

An Hon. Member: In Scotland.

Mr. Hughes: He is not on the Opposition Front Bench. Looking back into recent history, we know that the right hon. Gentleman has completely changed the whole attitude of the Scottish peers to the House of Lords. Far from wanting to go to the House of Lords, he came out of it. The right hon. Gentleman's nonappearance on this occasion shows that the hon. Member for Ayr is trying to lead an insurrection against him.
The aristocracy who take politics seriously have decided that the House of Lords is a spent force. That is why the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire does not think it worth his while coming along to take part in the debate and back up the hon. Member for Ayr.
As hon. Members may have gathered, I do not believe in the House of Lords.


I do not want to argue about that, because I understand that I would be out of order. However, I do not wish to claim any special privileges for Scottish peers. I do not believe that there is any feeling or any great demand in Scotland that a certain percentage of Scottish peers should come to London to take part in proceedings in a reformed House of Lords. If it was suggested that Scottish peers should come down and receive substantial salaries and first-class air fares, there would be public meetings in Ayr protesting against it. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Ayr has the support of the democratic sentiments of the people of Ayr in his concern about Scottish peers being members of a reformed House of Lords.

[Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: However that may be, what about the obligation under the Act of Union? Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to address himself to that?

Mr. Hughes: I am not at present in Ayr. Hon. Members will remember that the most distinguished and immortal citizen of Ayr was Robert Burns. He was born at Alloway, but he spent part of his time in Ayr. There is a strong historical sentiment in Ayr against the House of Lords. Robert Burns wrote:
Ye see yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, and stares, and a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that…

Hon. Members: Translate.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Hughes: I am trying to translate Burns for the benefit of the English.

Mr. Kirk: On a point of order. Mr. Brewis, is it in order for the hon. Member to speak a foreign language?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): No it is not, but the rest of it is in order.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) is utterly unsympathetic to Scotland. He is obviously opposed to Scotland, because he regards the normal language of Robert Burns as a foreign language. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr would repudiate his hon. Friend immediately.
Perhaps I might finish the quotation, or better still read it all:
Ye see yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, and stares, and a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that:
For a' that, and a' that,
His riband, star, and a' that,
The man of independent mind,
He looks and laughs at a' that.
That is a genuine expression of the feelings of the people of Ayr to this whole House of Lords business.

Mr. Hastings: Sing us a song.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Ayr started his speech by referring to the historical background of 1707. The hon. Gentleman ought to have gone further back into history, because the titles of many of the peers who presumably will be called upon to vote for the lucky one-tenth go further back into history than that. There is a considerable amount of descriptive literature about these noble gentlemen, which shows that they were by no means the most popular people in Scottish history.
I pass from Burns to a later Scottish spokesman, Thomas Carlyle. He looked a little further back than 1707, and said:
It is noteworthy that the nobles of this country of Scotland have maintained a quite despicable behaviour from the days of Wallace downwards—a selfish, ferocious, famishing, unprincipled set a hyeanas"—
these are the people who are to have special privileges—
from whom at no time and no way has the country derived any benefit whatsoever.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Like the Tory Party.

Mr. Hughes: They are the lineal descendants of the gentlemen whom Carlyle described in this rather vituperative language with which I should not like to associate myself.
Another more obscure Scottish historian described them as,
Ravenous wolves who have enough and to spare, yet so greedy and covetous they will not suffer the people to live in peace.
This is the old nobility of Scotland. If hon. Gentlemen opposite want a full and detailed study of how these members of the House of Lords came to acquire their lands, I can only advise them that I have no time to go into detail.

The Temporary Chairman: I should be obliged if the hon. Member would not go into detail, but would bring his remarks back to the Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: I know you would be much obliged, Mr. Brewis, if I did not pursue this argument, but I submit that it is relevant to the Bill. Obviously one tenth of the peers, under this Amendment, would come from Scotland. Their titles have come in this way.

Mr. Younger: I am so enjoying the hon. Member's remarks that I have desisted till now from correcting him, but he is under a false impression. This Amendment does not suggest that 10 should be elected, but only that the Prime Minister should have an obligation to see, in advising Her Majesty, that at least one in ten of the peers are resident in Scotland. It is nothing to do with election or with heredity at all.

Mr. Hughes: It is an argument for special privileges for peers who nearly all happen to be peers because their ancestors were of this special character.

Mr. Younger: I know that the hon. Member always likes to address himself closely to the matter in hand, and that is why I tell him that there is no question of ancestors in this. I am referring to appointed peers, peers of first creation, appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister as life peers.

Mr. Hughes: Their ancestors have faded into history but this would be considered when it was decided which Scots peers should go to the House of Lords. Before the House would seek to go——

Mr. Oscar Mutton: In referring to the ancestry of these peers in such deleterious terms, is the hon. Member referring to Highlanders or Low-landers?

Mr. Hughes: I was not referring to any in disrespectful terms. I was merely referring to the literary figure, Thomas Carlyle. [Interruption.] Now the hon. Member is arguing between Highlands and Lowlands. I do not know where it comes in terms of the Amendment, because I think if he wanted one tenth each from Highlands and Lowlands he would be asking too much. I hold no brief for peers who come from the Lowlands. As far as I can take an objective

view, all of them were bloodthirsty. I take the Lowlands first.

Mr. Powell: Is it in order, Mr. Brewis, for hon. Members in this House to refer to noble Lords and members of another place as bloodthirsty?

The Temporary Chairman: I think it is to be deprecated, but it is not unparliamentary.

Mr. Hughes: That suits me. I come to the Lowlands——

Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order, if I could support the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), the Wolf of Badenoch was proud of the title of being bloodthirsty.

Mr. Hughes: I am still in the Lowlands. I have travelled from Ayr to the Lowlands, and, in reply to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton), I do not see any great distinction between Lowlands and Highlands because we have had the old family of Home. The right hon. Gentleman who represents the present generation of that family has told us frankly that the Homes were the most successful cattle stealers in the Borders. To be descended from cattle stealers and bandits is not necessarily a qualification to take part in this ballot on who is to sit in the House of Lords. If the hon. Member wants to find out about the old nobility of the Lowlands and Highlands——

Mr. Ian MacArthur: To which ballot in the House of Lords in the hon. Gentleman referring?

Mr. Hughes: I understood that the peers are to be elected by ballot——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Younger: I have tried again and again to get it across to the hon. Member that I have never suggested, nor will I suggest, that any peers are elected. They are all to be appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister and, presumably, the Leader of the Opposition. I merely suggested that some should be ordinarily resident in Scotland.

Mr. Hughes: I am surprised at how democratic the hon. Member's proposal is. They are to be selected, not by a ballot of Scottish peers, but by an English


Prime Minister. That is enough to make the hon. Member for Hamilton's blood boil.
To discover how these peers came to obtain so much political power, I recommend to hon. Members a classic history of the nobility of Scotland, called "Our Noble Friends"——

Mr. Crouch: On a point of Order. I would never seek to cross the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), whose experience of order in Committee is excelled by none, but I would seek your guidance, Mr. Brewis. On what Amendment is he addressing the Committee?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to Amendment No. 156, but I am not sure that what he is saying is quite relevant.

Mr. Hughes: I have confidence in your impartiality, Mr. Brewis, and your knowledge of the rules of order, and know that if I had strayed one iota from the rules of order, you would have pulled me up long ago——

The Temporary Chairman: I already have.

Mr. Hughes: I deprecate the hon. Member's intervention, therefore, as an attempt to reflect on the Chair. Because you represent Galloway, next to me, Mr. Brewis, I regret that very much.
Let us consider, now, this examination of our noble families, whose descendants the hon. Member for Ayr wants to see in the Lords and specially privileged. This classic was written by an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Thomas Johnston. I could spend a great deal of time, if I did not want to keep my speech brief, reading copious extracts from this classic and well-known work, but I will content myself by quoting from the preface——

Hon. Members: Preamble.

Mr. Hughes: "Preamble" is only a very respectable name for a preface. It is a Norman translation of the word "preface". This preface says:
The first step in reform, either of the Land Laws or of the House of Lords, is to destroy"——

Earl of Dalkeith: On a point of order. Since the Deputy Government Chief Whip has just returned, may we be assured that we are not to be cut short at the very beginning of our discussion of this subject

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot tell what will happen.

Mr. Hughes: I welcome the appearance of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley). When he presides in the Whips' Office his signature tune is "Show Us the Way to Go Home." He was attracted here by the knowledge that I was going to deal thoroughly with the question of Scottish peers.
2.0 a.m.
I start again with my quotation from Tom Johnston:
The first step in reform either of the Land Laws or of the House of Lords is to destroy these delusions and superstitions. Show the people that our own nobility is not noble, that its lands are stolen lands—stolen either by force or fraud. Show people that the title deeds are rapine, murder, massacre, cheating or court harlotry"—
this is Tom Johnston in one of his more moderate moods—
destroy the halo of divinity that surrounds the hereditary title; let the people clearly understand that our present House of Lords is composed largely of descendants of successful pirates and rogues, do these things and we shatter the romance that keeps the nation numb and spellbound while privilege picks its pockets.
I would not dream of using that language, but it is the considered opinion of a man who delved very deeply into Scottish history.
If hon. Members opposite wish to borrow this book—they can pay me a small fee—they will obtain some very useful material which will completely alter their political outlook. I shall not harrow the feelings of hon. Members opposite by reading the more purple passages from Tom Johnston's book, but I suggest that the Scottish peers have no special right to claim a certain fraction of the membership of the House of Lords. There is no historical argument for their being there.
Mention has been made of the Treaty of 1707. If hon. Members go to the House of Lords they will be able to examine that treaty in the Lords Library, and they will see that many of the Lords


could hardly write their own names. [An HON. MEMBER: "They cannot be good at everything."] It is very interesting to examine the Act of Union in the House of Lords. The signatories are all famous men. Some signatures in the Lords today are no better than those appended to the original treaty.
I used to know the old Earl of Glasgow very well. He was chairman of the county council there for a long time. It was clear to me that the handwriting of the Glasgow's had not improved in the 20C or 300 years that had elapsed since the treaty was signed. I do not see why, because a collection of people met in 1707, we should perpetuate the Scottish hereditary element in the House of Lords.
What about the new element? It consists largely of successful business people. I do not want to go back into the history of recent years. Lloyd George sent quite a number of very wealthy Scots peers to the House of Lords, including many brewers and distillers and business people. It is not only a question of a hereditary title; the hon. Member for Ayr has a hereditary Whipship as well as a hereditary title.
I fail to understand why these Amendments and all this talk about consideration for Scotland should have the support of the Committee. I am sure that there will be no collusion on the other side about this Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman, the former Conservative Prime Minister, has left the burning deck long ago, leaving behind a few stragglers who come along with ideas about the rights of Scotland in the House of Lords. I wish they would agree about the rights of Scotland in other respects.
Although I have repeatedly voted against the Government in previous discussions, I now have great pleasure in supporting the Government. Even if the hon. Member for Rotherham moves the closure, I shall look upon him with sympathetic consideration.

Earl of Dalkeith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has resumed his seat without giving us a rendering of "My love is like a red, red Ross". Perhaps he could fill in with a few minutes of what I am sure would be a tuneful song.
It is interesting to note that so far in all our discussions in this Committee we have had two Scottish representatives from the other side, one a Welshman and the other an Englishman. I do not think we have yet heard a Scotsman speaking from the Government benches.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the great Scottish patriot, William Wallace, was a Welshman?

Earl of Dalkeith: I hardly think that is relevant to my point.
I must reinforce the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) about the timing of this debate. I believe it is a matter of racial discrimination. The Government are treating us like white fish. I see on the Government Front Bench a Minister who was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and who will be aware that debates on fishing matters traditionally come on at this hour. It is certainly shocking that such an important matter should be served up at this hour.
We all enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire. He would no doubt count himself among those who consider themselves knockers of tradition and the Establishment. The knockers have been fairly successful. It is said that they seem to think it unnecessary to try to find some kind of replacement for what they are knocking down.
This is the whole point of the Bill and is the purpose of this Amendment. But all one can see—to borrow the immortal phrase invented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)—are the sacred cows of Socialism coming home to roost. To me, as a forester, the idea fills me with alarm, particularly when they seem to be aiming for family trees.
Paragraph 50 of the White Paper says:
The Government attaches the greatest importance to the presence in the reformed House of peers who can speak with authority on the problems and wishes of Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland…
We in Scotland are not in the same position as Wales because our law is totally different. For that reason the same per capita representation as might be applicable to other regions of the United


Kingdom, is not sufficient and in suggesting 10 per cent. my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has been extremely modest. I would have suggested a higher figure, since 10 per cent. of a House of Lords with a complement of 230 peers would give Scotland only 23 representatives which I do not believe is enough. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the spirit of the Amendment and write a similar provision into the Bill, or they may find themselves in breach of the Act of Union.
The bugbear of this Bill is that even if it is trying to do the right thing, which I very much doubt, it is absolutely clear that it is doing it at the wrong time. In any event, nothing should be done in this context until the Wheatley report, and its counterpart for England, are available. We do not know what may be in store for us in terms of local government reform and the outcome of the deliberations which are now proceeding could have a strong bearing on the sort of regional representation which we may have.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I suspect that I may be a somewhat unique animal on these benches in that this is my first contribution to the discussions that have taken place on this Measure.
In view of the appalling pun with which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) began his speech, I will not follow the theme which he adopted, except to tell him that I am ordinarily resident in Scotland. That would appear to place me in line with what has been generally laid down in recent minutes.
I am prepared to accept that the Committee is discussing a matter of some importance, although, in the context of the Bill, I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was greatly optimistic in imagining that public meetings will be taking place in Ayr. I would bet that a poll would reveal a state of wild apathy about the content of the Measure; and it would need more than the impassioned eloquence of my hon. Friend to arouse much interest and enthusiasm.

Mr. Heffer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that a state of wild apathy exists in Parliament over the Bill, particularly since not more than half the total number of hon. Members are taking part in Divisions?

Mr. Dewar: There may be apathy in general, but there is a great deal of interest in the Bill in particular. If my hon. Friend is saying that he is apathetic, heaven preserve us when he is in a state of energy.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) although I found it difficult to follow the thread of his argument. I share his general prejudice in the matter, although I accept that he was not concerned with hereditary peers. For this reason it is relevant to consider the Amendment in terms of the Scottish peerage in past generations.
I accept that it is not directly relevant, although he has himself to some extent made it relevant by this other minor Amendment to the effect that they should be brought into the machinery of discussion of specifically Scottish affairs, with the proviso that that could be reversed by a decision of voting peers in the House of Lords. So it is to that extent relevant.
Of course, at the end of the day prejudices will still colour consideration, and perhaps relevantly, of what is meant by "ordinarily resident" in Scotland. I accept the point he makes, and I have no wish, and certainly would not, without a good deal of preparation, be competent, to go into the niceties of the law and the distinction between "domiciled" and "ordinarily resident" as a phrase, but it seems to me a matter which could easily raise considerable difficulties.
There is in Scots law a very complicated body of case law on the meaning of domicile in Scotland, and this is not just a simple matter, but one which has certainly exercised the judiciary over a large number of years in a continuing process of definition, and presumably, the people who will be arbitrating on whether 10 per cent. or not of the peers are ordinarily resident in Scotland will not want to be involved in the complexes of the Scots law of domicile. If it is a matter of not just "ordinarily resident" but "domiciled", it seems to me


that we are getting into another sort of difficulty, because while I accept that there may well be precedents from the tax law of the United Kingdom, at the end of the day there will be an element of choice, whether a man is "ordinarily resident" or not.
Members of the Scottish aristocracy had in the past and may have today a house in Scotland, or a very large number of houses, and houses in England. They are perhaps the last of the travelling folk who kind of move around. It may be they could advance a plausible claim to be "ordinarily resident" in Scotland and yet might very well be the kind of people one would not pick as representative of the spirit and ordinary feelings of Scotland. There has been a well-established and long-established custom among the Scottish aristocracy not to be educated in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: Would the hon. Gentleman mind addressing himself—I know he is trying to be serious—to the points which I made? I have never suggested the "hereditary aristocracy" or the "aristocracy" at all. I was talking about the Prime Minister's own appointed life peers. It would be a great service to us all if the hon. Gentleman would address himself to that point.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member who, I know, is trying to be helpful, is himself in error because he has not listened carefully enough to the argument. I am well aware that the new peers are not necessarily to come from the traditional, historical aristocracy of Scotland, and that the hon. Member limits them to a narrower group.
I am trying to point that I do not consider, if he is trying by means of this Amendment to introduce into the House of Lords a body of men who will really represent the feelings of Scotland and be in touch with opinion in Scotland, that he will not necessarily succeed, because there are not sufficient safeguards in merely saying they must be "ordinarily resident" in Scotland. I have been trying to point out that in the past, admittedly, and perhaps still, the aristocracy might well have been considered qualified to sit in the other House on the ground of ordinary residence, but yet, in my view, would not have been really representative of the feelings and spirit of Scotland.

Mr. Younger: Would the hon. Gentleman prefer, then, that I should alter the Amendment to read that they should be "ordinarily resident in England"? Would that be helpful?

Mr. Dewar: Not at all. No. It would be extremely helpful. I was merely trying to point out to the hon. Member that "ordinarily resident in Scotland" does not necessarily give the kind of qualification which, I presume, he is seeking in these peers, that is, to put into the House of Lords someone who is really in touch with the feelings of Scotland.
On exactly the same lines, the aristocracy of Scotland in the past—who I agree would not necessarily be the people in point—would still have qualified in terms of "ordinarily resident", but because of their social mores, ways of life and so on are utterly alien to the general population of Scotland. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too complacent and confident that writing in that consideration will achieve his purpose.

Mr. Wylie: Presumably the Prime Minister in making an appointment would have to have regard to the criteria set out in the Preamble—
… suitable numbers of peers with knowledge of and experience in…
That, surely, is not irrelevant?

Mr. Dewar: I find it a little strange that hon. Members supporting the Amendment should now rely on the despised Preamble, which they found so inadequate and have rejected.
I have no intention of trying to hold up this discussion, which I suspect will be maintained by its own momentum for a very long time. But I should like to make one or two remarks about the point that seems to fill the horizon of many hon. Members, namely, the immutability of the Act of Union. This surprises me. The Act is an extremely important Statute, for which I have a great respect, but it is the basis of a partnership. Moreover, it was written in 1707, which by any standards, even those of the Scottish aristocracy, is a very long time ago. In terms of representation, whether in the House of Lords or the House of Commons, the provisions of the Act have been left far behind. I do not regard it as a kind of graven


tablet on high with which we cannot tamper.
If there is agreement in partnership between the representatives of England and Scotland as to the kind of developments we want to introduce, it would be very silly to allow the writ of the Act of Union to stand in the way. It is easy to make this point cheaply by reference to the Act, but as the question has been raised and as I have a copy with me it might be worth doing. There are all sorts of provisions in it that have long since rightly been forgotten. For example, when we were discussing the siting of the Mint in Britain there was a great deal of talk in the Press about the provisions in the Act about the Scottish Mint. No one bothered to discover that that provision was repealed in the 1860s.
If one looks at the Act of Union one will find all sorts of interesting provisions about salt duties, for example, with which I will not bother the Committee. But I draw the attention of hon. Members to Section X, which says:
… during the continuance of the respective Duties of Stampt paper, Vellom and Parchment, by the several Acts now in force in England, Scotland shall not be charged with the same respective Duties.
I suspect that we are paying our share by now, and I do not think that anyone would find that particularly unreasonable.
The hon. Member for Ayr will no doubt be interested in the provisions of Section VII, dealing with excise duties and exciseable liquors, which says:
… excepting only that the thirty four Gallons English Barrel of Beer or Ale amounting to twelve Gallons Scots present measure sold in Scotland by the Brewer at nine shillings six pence Sterling excluding all Duties and Retailed including Duties and the Retailers profit at two pence the Scots pint or eight part of the Scots Gallon, be not after the Union lyable on account of the present Excise upon Excisable Liquors in England, to any higher Imposition than two shillings Sterling upon the forsaid thirty four Gallons English barrel, being twelve gallons the present Scots measure.…
It might well be that I would run an extremely popular campaign in Scotland if I tried to stand on the Act of Union and say that there should be no higher duty than two bob on a 34-gallon barrel of beer, but it would not be seriously entertained by the House. I hope that

we shall not stand too rigidly on what should be the foundation for a partnership. Such detail is unpleasant and irrelevant. If we insist on these detailed vested interests, I remind the Committee that those who benefited most from the Act of Union were the lawyers, the Church and the Scottish peers, who had to be placated in the original settlement.

Mr. MacArthur: The historical background to the Treaty of Union was exactly the other way round.

Mr. Dewar: I do not agree. These interested groups were given a special, entrenched position because they were influential at the time and their consent had to be gained if the Measure was to go through. There were all sorts of reasons for the treaty and all sorts of mutual advantages to be gained. But, in broad terms, what I have said holds up. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not disagree about the basic points in the treaty.
This is a very serious matter and one has sympathy with what the hon. Member for Ayr said about Scottish business in the House of Lords and the efficient vetting of that business. But I am not sure that this is a valid point. I think that the provisions in the Preamble and the good sense of the Government of the day mean that they will seek to manage affairs in a businesslike way without the need for a specific safeguard in the Bill.
I worry considerably about the idea of having a special interest group, even one particularly important to me as a Scotsman, written into the Bill in specific terms. Once one starts doing this, it is difficult to avoid confining it to one case. There is already a spatter of Amendments down with reference to other regions. Hon. Members opposite say that they do not want that but the Amendment opens up the wider argument, and surely we do not want to organise the Upper House in terms of interest groups and territorial connection. The Lower House is based on territorial connection, but that does not apply to the Upper House.
I would not be happy about the idea that the other place should be fragmented into groups of representatives who were there not because of individual merit—although they might be of merit—but who were selected because they came


from a territorial area and whose first loyalty lay to that area.
Other countries run such a system, the most obvious being West Germany, where the Bundesrat, the Upper House, consists of representatives of the Land Governments. They are nominees of the Land Governments. This set-up illustrates the dangers, because there is an immediate clash between the Lower House and the Upper House because of the interest groups represented in the Upper House. The system becomes unworkable and the safeguard the system is supposed to build in is defeated. The situation is unsatisfactory and it has not worked in West Germany.
This is a matter of interpretation and personal opinion, but it is my opinion and I believe that it is a real danger. This matter would escalate, because we arc being asked to change the whole concept on which the Upper House is to be formed. I am not prepared to support the Amendment, although I accept the concern which has motivated it.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): Mr. David Steel.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. May I draw your attention to the fact that we are debating Amendments Nos. 190 and 187? This is not an exclusively Scottish debate.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That had not escaped my notice.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: It is the custom in the House to declare any interest which an hon. Member has in a Bill, and I wonder whether it would be in order for me to declare a lack of interest in this one. I have not taken part in these discussions at all and have regarded the passage of the Bill through the House as a mistake by the Government, which has enabled me to catch up on my correspondence.

This Amendment is of interest to Scottish Members, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on raising this subject. I received a useful memorandum circulated to a number of hon. Members by Scottish members in the House of Lords——

Mr. Eric Lubbock: On a point of order. I wonder whether you

could cause the hon. Members sitting immediately behind me to shut up so that I could hear what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was delivering himself of abusive terms, which I would hesitate to repeat to the Chair, it is not surprising that there was a hubbub behind him. Indeed, the hubbub was not in proportion to the abusive language which the hon. Member was using.

Mr. Steel: My only claim to speak on this subject is that I would contest the claim of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to represent a large number of Scottish peers. I can assure him that I can claim to represent a larger number than any other hon. Member in the Committee. Like him, I am grateful that they are classed with criminals and lunatics for voting purposes, because I have no doubt that they would not assist me in my continuing to represent that part of Scotland.
I have an interest on behalf of my constituents and I have an interest in the constitutional point raised, which has rather been lost sight of. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) can be relied upon to speak when the Government's case is inadequate. He has an interest to defend, because if the Amendment was carried he could not qualify for a peerage because he is ordinarily resident in London. He might have declared that before he began his speech.
The constitutional point is important. The Act of Union of 1707 was a unique instrument, because there was no external guarantee built in after the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament. There was no external force, either by court of law or some constitutional body, to protect the interests of Scotland after the Act came into effect. The only provisions which can be said to be contained in it, which underline the importance of what might be regarded as entrenched Clauses in the Act, were phrases like "forever after" and "for all time". Such phrases mean nothing. The Government of the day can at any time change the provisions of the Act.
For the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South to raise Clauses about salt duty and equate them with the importance of


the entrenched provisions for Scottish representation is ridiculous. I hope that when the Secretary of State replies we will be assured that the Government are sensitive to this constitutional provision, are aware that the equivalent of an entrenched Clause was negotiated in 1707, and that an entrenched proportion of representation was ensured by Statute. It is that provision which the hon. Member for Ayr is seeking to up-date in modern terms, in line with a reform proposed by the Government. It is wholly right and proper, and essential for the interests of Scotland that it should be carried out.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) declared his lack of interest in the Bill. He said that until we came to this important Clause affecting Scotland, he thought that the best way he could discharge his obligations to the Committee on the Bill was to be absent altogether. I am sure that that is the view held by some, but I am sure that they do not understand what would be the result if we all followed their example. [AN HON. MEMBER: "We should be home earlier ".] We should get home a bit earlier, but that should not be our approach to the conduct of important business in the House. If hon. Members followed that course, the Bill would go through entirely in the form in which the Government propose it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman must answer for his attitude.
At an earlier stage in our discussions, the Liberal spokesman said that they were bitterly opposed to the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that he was strongly opposed to it. What I am now pointing out is that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles had upheld a course which would have meant the passage of the Bill in exactly the form in which the Government proposed it. It should be known it Scotland that that is the position. It would be of interest to Liberals in Scotland who have held quite strong views about the House of Lords in the past that the spokesman for the Liberal Party on this occasion takes the view that this Measure should have been allowed to go through in its present form.

Mr. Crouch: I agree that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said at the outset that he was not interested in the Bill, but he went on to show a considerable interest in the Amendment now before us, with reference to the Act of 1707. He spoke much more sensibly on that point than did the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) with the Act in his hand.

Mr. Foot: I shall come to the Act of Union as it affects this Clause. But I was entitled to my comment, in view of what the hon. Gentleman had said, in order to clarify the Liberal Party's position.

Mr. David Steel: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would share my view that the Government are wasting a great deal of Parliamentary time on this rather mealy-mouthed Measure. If he looks up the Division records, he will find that on almost every occasion I have been in the same Lobby with him.

Mr. Foot: I am glad of that. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is fair comment to point out that, if we all followed the course which he suggested, the Government would have their Bill without hostility and they could then represent to the country that the House of Commons was pretty well unanimous about it. In my view, that would be disastrous. Therefore, I put it to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the highest respect, that he might on reflection consider, as might his fellow Liberals, that those of us who have opposed the Bill have not been wasting the time of the House but have been debating a matter of first importance. It is not advisable for members of the Liberal Party, particularly those who are opposed to it, to taunt those who have maintained active opposition to the Bill.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Not only have the Liberals adopted that attitude, but were they not parties to the package deal and have been in with it right the way through?

Mr. Lubbock: You are a liar.

Mr. Foot: There is a distinction between the attitudes of different members of the Liberal Party, and I


should not be in order in examining those now.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. It will have been in the hearing of a number of hon. Members that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) accused the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) of being a liar. Is that not unparliamentary, and ought it not to be withdrawn?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): It is an unparliamentary term, but the Chair did not hear it.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. The Chair may not have heard the remark, but I distinctly heard it. It is high time that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) began to use Parliamentary language in the Chamber and to refrain from making statements such as that which he made the other night. He called my hon. Friend a liar when my hon. Friend had simply stated what he thought to be the position. I do not know what the Chair heard, but I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Lubbock: I apologise to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) for calling him a liar. He was guilty of an inaccuracy because, although there was agreement between the Front Benches of the parties, that did not involve all my hon. Friends.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. I understood that the leader of the Liberal Party, as the leaders of the Tory Party, came to a package deal with the Government Front Bench. I referred to the leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman did not say that.

Mr. Lewis: I said the Leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Lubbock: No.

Mr. Lewis: I did and I say it again. If the Liberal Party has split and it was only one member of it, I would say that one-sixth of the Liberal Party was involved.

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order. I know that you have only just come into the Chair, Mr. Gourlay, but are not these

Amendments about Scotsmen and not about Liberals?

Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order. I disagree with my hon. Friend. The debate is not confined to Scotland. There are two Amendments.

The Deputy Chairman: I did not think it necessary to point that out to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), even though I have occupied the Chair for only a short time this morning.

Mr. Foot: These Amendments go much wider than Scotland. I was making a comment about the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and I hope that, on consideration he will think differently.
I now come to the aspect of the matter which affects Scotland, what has been said about the Act of Union. A rather sinister argument seems to have been introduced. It is evident from our previous debates that the Bill is not universally popular, if I may put it that way. There is considerable hostility to it on both sides of the Committee. No very powerful or attractive arguments have been brought forward on its behalf, and even the Government have not been very enthusiastic.
There now seems to be a sinister attempt to introduce the Act of Union into the discussion and to bestow upon the Bill an entirely meretricious attraction. If the Bill drove a coach and horses through the Act of Union, some hon. Members and hon. Ladies might begin to take a different view, and we have therefore carefully to consider whether in fact the Bill injures the position under the Act of Union.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) has been a strong opponent of the Bill throughout. She opposed the White Paper and she bitterly opposed the Second Reading of the Bill—she signed my Amendment to the Second Reading—and she has voted against the Bill on every conceivable occasion. We may regard the hon. Lady as an authority on at any rate some aspects of the Act of Union. I understand that it is a matter to which she has given some attention. The hon. Lady does not take the view that the Bill would injure the Act of Union; if she


did, she might take a different view of the Bill.
It cannot be argued that the Bill, with or without the Amendment, would destroy the Act of Union, although the Act of Union, particularly in connection with peers, was shrouded in obscurity to some extent. Some would argue, as I dare say the hon. Lady would argue, with some justice, that the passage of the Act of Union was a matter which would hardly bear investigation according to the high standards of political morals which we profess today. Some aspects of it should not be entirely accepted. It is true that some of the condemnation of the way in which the Act of Union was originally passed arose because of the writings of Lochart the Jacobite, who was a very good writer, even though most reprehensible in politics.
But there are many other aspects of the way in which the Act of Union was passed through which I think would hardly bear investigation according to those standards today. Moreover, there are the subsequent events that occurred, which we were talking about in the House the other day in the intervention by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Very soon after the passage of the Act of Union, when the agreement had been made about the number of peers who were to sit in the other place, the arrangement that had been made in 1707 by the Government of that time was found to be unsatisfactory for the Government of 1711.
2.45 a.m.
Indeed, it is an absolutely classic case of how it is not possible for people to stay bought. We have been arguing in some of the other Clauses whether the Government can make an arrangement whereby peers placed in another place will hold to the opinions which the Government think they have in the first place. It so happens that this Amendment illustrates how impossible it is for that to happen.
Now the right hon. Gentleman, when I referred the other day to the crisis of 1711, which is particularly apposite for our discussion now, interrupted me and said that the creation of the 12 peers in 1711 by Queen Anne had been undertaken precisely because of the fact that

some of the Scottish peers had proved unreliable.

Mr. Powell: Too expensive.

Mr. Foot: Too expensive—well, that is a more precise way of putting it, but it comes to the same thing.
It was expected, when the Act of Union was put through, that those who would represent Scotland in the House of Lords would hold to the opinion of sustaining the Government of the day. The Government of 1711 happened to be engaged in a particularly disgraceful manoeuvre of betraying our allies in Europe in order to secure the Treaty of Utrecht.
The Government in power at that time—a Conservative Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] It is perfectly true. I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not disown some of their most eminent leaders, Lord Bolingbroke and Lord Harley, the first Conservative Prime Minister. They were engaged in this manoeuvre and to overcome the situation that some of the Scottish peers would not stay bought, they had to create 12 new peers, which they did create. Indeed, such a mockery was this attempt to change the situation by creating these peers that when they were appointed it was asked whether they would vote together or not, whether they would vote according to their foreman or individually.
We cannot possibly write into the Bill the Clause which the hon. Gentleman suggests, because if Scottish peers were so unreliable or so expensive in 1711, why should we think that they are cheaper and more reliable in 1969? There is not the slightest scrap of evidence to suggest that their morals have improved in the interim at all. Therefore, I do not think it is possible to lay down any law which will ensure that when the Scottish peers get there, they will vote according to the ideas, instructions or arrangements that have been made at the time of their appointment.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am not quite sure I follow his argument entirely in the light of the Amendment we are discussing. The stipulation which my hon. Friend has imposed is not a stipulation of party loyalty, but a stipulation of residence. Therefore, surely it is not


a question of the Scottish peers staying bought, but a question of their staying put.

Mr. Foot: That I appreciate, but there has to be the double qualification. The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said that he was also interested in their staying put, and so is the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). Under the Bill they have to stay bought as well. The arrangement must be a combined one; not merely must there be a certain number of indiscriminately situated peers who would be prepared to stay bought, but a certain number of peers domiciled in a particular place would also have to stay bought, which enormously multiplies the complications of the Measure.

The Amendment is not directed to deal with the fundamental measures of the Bill, it is embroidery of the Bill. Within this arrangement of picking 230 peers, the hon. Gentleman is saying that a certain number should come from Scotland. That multiplies the difficulties of getting peers who will serve the purposes that the Government have in mind in creating them, or the purposes of the Opposition when they appoint a certain number, because it is a necessary consequence of the Bill that the Opposition peers should also stay bought, or keep to the general arrangement or understanding which exists at the time of their appointment. If they do not, the balance can be upset the other way.

The more one looks at the proposition put forward by the hon. Gentleman, the more one believes that it will greatly complicate an already complex situation. A Prime Minister who had to carry out all the permutations that are needed to be laid down if this proposal were carried out would have no time to spend on anything else.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for addressing himself so seriously to the argument, but he is not being quite fair. Party allegiance does not come into the Amendment. The only question I am considering is where they are normally resident. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that out of five in Scotland a Prime Minister would have difficulty in finding representatives of the two major political parties, that is an exaggeration.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman must face the complications; he is moving the Amendment, and I have treated it seriously. I acknowledge that the Bill touches the Act of Union. The Act of Union contained an extraordinary provision about guaranteeing to Scotland a number of peers to sit in the other place, a guarantee, incidentally, which is not provided for any other part of the United Kingdom, but I will come to that in a moment. The Act of Union contained that provision, and, therefore, it could be said that Scottish Members have a duty to raise this matter and to see how a constitutional Bill of this importance affects the Act of Union.
I do not dispute that. All I am saying is that when the hon. Gentleman searches for a remedy he must be prepared to consider the complications that arise from the remedy. I am trying to illustrate how vastly complex the matter is. For example, if the Amendment were to go through, the Prime Minister might think, "I have about three or four safe Scottish peers; I will go along and trade them with the Opposition ones, to see how many safe ones they have and where they are situated." The Liberal Party, even the radical section of the Liberal Party, would no doubt stake a claim to be in on this too.
Which would be settled first? Would the reliability of the peers or their geographical allocation be settled first? It is an extremely difficult matter to settle. We are told these things can all be done behind the scenes, and this is an illustration of how difficult it would be.
Presumably Wales would also stake a claim. I know that there is no Act of Union which lays it down, but presumably there would have to be a general figure that is understood between the two sides.
Moreover, if the Royal Commission that is to examine the whole question of regional government were to report that the representation of Scotland under local government should be much the same as for Wales—for example, that in the North or in the South-West there should be the same kind of regional representation as may be proposed for Scotland or for Wales—then under the Clause, if it were accepted, there would have to be consequential Amendments proposed by the Government to insist that


the same kind of nomination would take place in the other regions. That would enormously complicate it again.

Mr. David Steel: Surely the hon. Gentleman's argument is false. The sponsors of the Amendment would not support any of the other Amendments attached to it. There are two fundamental differences. One is that Scotland was a sovereign nation which entered into the Act of Union. The other is that we have a separate system of law and we still have to carry out our legislation. That does not apply to the other regions.

Mr. Foot: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many people in Wales—quite justly, in my opinion—would insist on the same rights for Wales in this matter. The fact that there happens to be a somewhat different historical background. the fact that Wales happens to have been much more successful earlier in resisting English attacks than the Scots, and the fact that the Welsh never agreed, as the Scots did, to the formal Act of Union, makes a big difference. If we are to have inquiries into these historical matters, many of us would never accept the proposition that there should be a special position for Scotland as against Wales or other parts of the United Kingdom. On the first point concerning the history, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge what I say. Because different parts of the United Kingdom have come to this position by different methods is not a reason for saying that Scotland should have a written-in position in the new House of Lords whereas Wales should not.
On the different system of law—and I was talking about the possibilities of a much wider regionalisation—I should assume that under the proposals for stronger and separate regional governments in different parts of the United Kingdom, which may emerge from the Commission, Wales and other parts of Great Britain would be able to vary their systems if they wished. In any case, I am entitled to argue that there should be the same rights for any regional government in Scotland as for Wales, the North of England, or some of the other places.

Mr. Maude: Is the hon. Gentleman really trying to persuade the Committee

that it would be possible to get a Welshman to stay bought?

Mr. Foot: I am not quite sure from what nondescript part of the country the hon. and mongrel Gentleman comes, so I do not know why he should make such an attack upon my adopted nationality. I am an honorary Welshman. Therefore, I repudiate his charge in the strongest possible terms.
I am putting forward a perfectly serious argument. If we are to write into the Bill special protections for the Scots, then we will have to do it for all the others, and that, again, will enormously multiply the difficulties of carrying it out.
Those of us who are opposed to the Bill are grateful to the hon. Member for Ayr for illustrating afresh the impossibility of making it sane and coherent. If the hon. Gentleman's reasonable Amendment, presented in reasonable terms, was adopted, and if the same principle was applied to other parts of the United Kingdom, everybody would realise—and even the Government would understand—the absolute impossibility of carrying out such an arrangement.
3.0 a.m.
Although there are objections, I think that there could be a system of election from the regions. We could say that Scotland, Wales, and the other regions would have a system of election to the second House. There would be profound objections to such a system, but it would overcome the complications of trying to do this by nominations. I believe that anybody who examines the proposals seriously must conclude that it would be impossible to carry out a reasonable allocation between different parts of the United Kingdom under any system of nomination. That is a further illustration of how the Bill would not work.
It is also a further illustration of how outrageous is the proposal that is being made by the Government, because here again, as in every previous Clause, we are being asked to pass something which nobody can explain. Nobody can define what we are being asked to approve. I know that it is tedious to argue these matters at three o'clock in the morning, but this is not our fault. If the Motion which some of us wanted the Committee to accept had been accepted we would not have to do this now.
There are a number of important questions which must be answered. What form of regional government is to be established in this country, whether we are to have it, whether it is to apply to Scotland and Wales, and in what form? These will be important questions over the next three or four years. We all agree about it. Whatever our views may be, we all understand that there has to be an answer from this Parliament and from this House of Commons to the people of this country. What is Parliament's answer to the demands for regional government? We know that this is a serious question. What proposals have the Government for dealing with it? I am not saying that it is the best proposal, but it has some advantages. A Commission should be set up to deal with it, and this is a further reason for not passing this Bill.
Paragraph 50 of the White Paper says:
The Government has felt obliged to reject a House composed on a regional basis for the reasons given in paragraph 23 above, and it considers that in present circumstances the most satisfactory method of achieving this objective would be for the Prime Minister of the day, in advising the Queen on the creation of new peers, to pay special and continuing regard to the need for the membership of the House of Lords to include a suitable number of persons with knowledge of and experience in matters which are of special concern to the various parts and regions of the United Kingdom. If the proposed Commission on the Constitution leads to changes which would make practicable or desirable new methods of securing the presence of members with knowledge of the various parts and regions of the United Kingdom these methods could be introduced at a later date.
They could be, but we are being asked to vote for something before we have had the report of the Commission, before we know the possibilities, before we are even told how proposals from the Commission will be brought before the House. Will they be brought forward by resolution as well? Will they be brought forward under the conditions of the Bill? This is the most extraordinary Bill that I have ever seen presented to the House. There is not a Clause in respect of which it cannot be said that a whole series of ill-defined and undefined measures will flow from it, and the Government have not told us how they propose to deal with each Clause.
There are no commitments. If we reject the Amendment, and if we do not pass an Amendment to deal with regional

proposals, we may get some statement from the Government about their general intentions, but we shall not have any guarantee about what is to happen, and if somebody outside asks us what is the relationship of the Bill to regional government in the future, or how many peers from different areas are to be appointed, we shall not be able to answer those questions. No one will be able to answer them. It will be an arbitrary affair. It will be up to the Government.
According to the White Paper, this part of the Bill is supposed to deal with the question of how many peers in the new House are to be appointed from different regions. If the Opposition Front Bench has no view on this, as on other matters it appears to have no view, this is rather serious. Are we to assume that the Opposition have no general view of these matters?
I do not accept that for a moment. I think they have. I remember the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in Edinburgh in which he stated his view about the future of Scotland. That affects this Bill, but he does not come and tell us the Opposition's view about it. I do not think that is proper for the House of Commons. I am absolutely serious in my opposition to this Bill, as I am sure are large and growing numbers of hon. Members. We cannot have a situation in which we are proposing to leave to indefinite Resolutions or amending Bills or Measures which have not even been explained or hinted at, decisions about the relationship of local government, regional government, and the House of Lords.
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's method of writing this into the Bill is very good, but it is proper that the Government should be called on first to state it much more specifically than they have. It is not stated at all in the Bill. They should be required to tell us how many peers will be appointed with regional considerations in mind, and how many of the different sides are to be appointed on this basis. How many peers from Scotland are supposed to be going there to sustain the obligation of the Act of Union, if those obligations are to be sustained, and how many are to be elected from other regions?
If all these different matters are not settled by the House of Commons, they will be settled in private discussion on some future date by the party leaders, and the whole of the country's future will be settled like that, without a Resolution of this House. I hope there will be no complaints from my hon. Friends if they are then in a different position. I hope they will not tell us, if they find this place stuffed with Tories once again, "We should have kicked up a row about that. I never knew we were doing that".
So, in spite of the fact that I disagree profoundly with the Amendment, see certain advantages in the approach of the Act of Union and the fact that many nobler Statutes have been placed on the Statute Book, and that I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, I hope also that the House of Commons will once again say to the Government "We are not prepared to let a measure of this nature go through."

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Perhaps you will allow me a few moments to explain. About three hours ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) suggested that we might report Progress and ask leave to sit again. We have had three more hours, and a moment ago about 20 hon. Members opposite got up, and I do not know how many on this side. If 20 are to speak from that side and a fair representation from this side, the discussion might go on for many hours yet. No one can expect this matter to be adequately discussed. If this is an important Measure, the leaders of both parties should be here discussing it, but because they are tired or disgusted they are not here. So circumstances have now changed. I ask for permission to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again,
and I want to give reasons why the Motion should be accepted——

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I am not prepared to accept the Motion at this stage, having regard to the circumstances of the debate, but it might be moved later.

Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order. When my hon. Friend the Member

for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) sought to move this Motion at 12 o'clock, the then occupant of the Chair said that consideration would be given to it at a suitable time. He said that once this debate had got under way there would be a basis for moving such a Motion. The debate has been going for a considerable time. To protect the interests of the Committee, Mr. Gourlay, I would ask you seriously to reconsider your decision.

The Deputy Chairman: In making its decisions, the Chair always has regard to the interests of the Committee. I was in the Chamber when my predecessor in the Chair made those remarks about the acceptance of the Motion. If we made a little more progress, I am sure that the Chair would look favourably upon such a Motion.

Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order. Might this not be the time when the Government could give the Committee an indication of their attitude to the passing of the Bill?

The Deputy Chairman: That is not exactly a point of order.

Mrs. Ewing: This Bill is repugnant to me and my party, with or without the Amendment. As to the attitude of the man in the street, after speaking in over 50 constituencies in one year, I have found that one frequently repeated question highlights his attitude in Scotland. To lapse into the language complained of before—not the non-parliamentary language, but the foreign language—the question is "Whit are we going tae dae wi' a' they dukes and lords?". My answer is always that I would abolish the House of Lords completely in its present form and that the only kind of second Chamber which I can envisage is an elected one with real powers and not a trained lap dog with none. To this end, I voted with great pleasure for a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
But I prefer the House of Lords in its present form to the form proposed by the Government. Although I do not approve of it, it has at least the independence of the haphazard. The Bill will give us representation by Establishment, and it will not have time to become haphazard. We will move from an eighteenth century House only to a nineteenth century one. We shall replace the


friends of long-dead Kings, Queens and Prime Ministers with friends and nominees of living Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition. I do not see this as progress.
We should not be congratulating ourselves on getting a nominated House under a complete umbrella of patronage. This proposition is rooted in the nineteenth century, which is part of history, or should be. Although I agree with much of what has been said about the Amendment adding complexity, it is an amelioration of the Bill and I will support it to that extent. I hasten to add that I am all for justice for England and Wales, and therefore I would also support Amendment 187.
3.15 a.m.
I cannot see a great deal of virtue in the fraction of one-tenth. Would not a good measure be the degree of seriousness of the social problems in Scotland? As these are usually twice as serious in respect of unemployment, emigration and slum housing, is not there a need for greater representation, so that we can get something done to put these things right?
Illogical as the Bill may be, the spirit of the Amendment improves it. But I have to pose several questions. Is it fair to ask more of the Lords than we ask of the Commons? Why are voting peers—or some of them—required to be ordinarily resident while Members of the House of Commons are not? The residence I have is ordinarily in Scotland. My home and family are there, and I want to be there. But I have extraordinary residence in England, and I come to the House three or four days a week. When does "ordinarily resident" become "extraordinarily resident"? The terms are unsatisfactory. I accept the spirit of the Amendment as an improvement, but I wonder whether it can be successfully interpreted.
I shall not go into the argument about the difficulty of the word "domicile". I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar); this is one of the most complex fields of Scots law, or any law. The very name of the subject is "Conflict of Laws". That is an indication of how complicated the matter is. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is trying to interpret the phrase "ordinarily resident" as

imposing a stricter requirement than the word "domiciled", but what does it mean? One, two, three or four days a week?
Reference has been made to the undignified proposition requiring Members of the other place to clock in when they are down here in London. Who will clock them in when they are up there? Who will do the checking? Will there be abuse of the system?

Sir D. Glover: This is a very interesting point, but under the appointments system the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition appoint the Members, and once they are appointed it does not matter where they live, because they are free agents.

Mrs. Ewing: That is my next point. Once appointed, they can move to a bungalow in Richmond or London and be ordinarily resident there, while being extraordinarily resident in Scotland for hunting, shooting and fishing.
I hope that this proposal is not intended to include the Law Lords. I do not approve of the House of Lords as an appeal court for Scottish cases, but we must deal with the situation as it exists at the moment. I hope that the hon. Member for Ayr does not mean to include Scottish Law Lords in his one-tenth representation. If the Lords Spiritual are to represent nominations other than their present ones I hope that there is no question of Scottish Lords Spiritual also being part of the one-tenth.
I now turn to the Treaty of Union. I am not going to deal with it as others have dealt with it. I wanted to deal with it in relation to an Amendment which has not been called but which proposes that the Act should be abolished. I do not complain that it was not called because I know that would have taken the debate wider than the Government would allow.
Three things have to be borne in mind with regard to the Treaty of Union. It was not a treaty at the time of universal suffrage when there was any question of a mandate from the people. It has already been broken so many times that it is not worth going into all the grievances of the past. It is still in course of being broken over the serious constitutional matter of entry into the Common


Market, a matter in which a Lord Commissioner, Lord Kilbrandon, has given it as his opinion that it is a possible breach of the Treaty.

Mr. Dewar: I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that the breaches and grievances of which she complains took place in a period of universal suffrage, and that as a result of the acts of which she complains the Government did not suffer election defeat. Whatever may have been the situation in 1707, there was a long period when the people of Scotland were not discontented with the bargain struck in the Act of Union.

Mrs. Ewing: I do not accept either part of the hon. Member's proposition. The first breach that comes to mind is the imposition of the treason law later on in the eighteenth century shortly after the Union, and then the right of appeal to the House of Lords was again, in my view, a breach of the Treaty of Union. That example is a matter of opinion which could be argued, and I will not go into it.
My third point about the Treaty of Union was mentioned by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Miss Harvie Anderson). I should like to make a quotation which might be of interest to the Committee and which is as follows:
With the Act of Union the great majority of Scots believed that it was the death knell of Scottish nationhood. It was a great blow to Scottish pride and could have finished Scotland as a nation, but because of our virility and tradition of independence it did not. When Burns wrote 'We are bought and sold for English gold—sic a parcel of rogues in a nation!' he was actually castigating Scotland. He wrote those lines because the Act of Union was purchased for £398,085—which was recognised as the cost of the Darien Scheme to Scotland under which Scotland hoped to build up a great colony that would produce great wealth for our country. The English, by the actions they took, spelt the ruin of the scheme and the whole of the money was lost. Scotland eventually agreed to the offer made by King William and so sold the right to have her own parliament in Edinburgh.
That was a quotation from a speech delivered in November, 1951, at the St. Andrew's Night dinner, held by the Kilmarnock Burns Club. The speaker was the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did not the hon. Gentleman opposite, when speaking for the Scottish Office, say that the story had arisen as a result of Jacobite propaganda?

Mr. Buchan: Apart from "digging and scrabbling in the files", which was a phrase used about me, the reference was to the Darien Scheme and to the commercial advantage which was sought to be gained by the Act of Union, in the sense that there was a swapping of the separate Scottish institution of Parliament for the commercial advantages and a common Parliament. The earlier allegation of bribery has been disproved by every serious historian from Pryde and Burton to McKinnon. The allegation of the Lockhart papers has not been established. It is quite nonsensical.

Mrs. Ewing: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view of the position and I thought that the Committee would be interested to know the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland. If the justification for the Amendment is the future of Scotland, the Committee must face up to the real difficulty that in the near future the whole constitutional arrangements for Scotland will have to be changed. In doing that, I hope that Parliament will adopt a realistic approach and accept the attitude of Scotland to that and towards the House of Lords as an institution. However, we have the House of Lords at present and all our discussions must be related to the present position and to what I believe is the short-term. The Amendment, at least in the short-term, maintains the spirit of the Treaty of Union which, although it has been broken, is still the best safeguard we have. Although I recognise its complexities, I support the Amendment. I regret, therefore, that for the first time in this Bill I shall not be going into the same Division lobby as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): In this group of proposals are a number of Amendments and a new Clause. Most of the discussion has centred around the proposals affecting Scotland. However——

Mr. Clegg: Mr. Clegg rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but The CHAIRMAN withheld his


assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Rees: As I was saying, there has been much discussion about Scotland. However, there are wider implications and——

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. We appear to be getting a reply from the Government. Are you aware, Mr. Gourlay, that no hon. Members representing English constituencies have spoken to this group of Amendments?

The Deputy Chairman: There is no reason to suggest that the debate is closing.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. If the Minister is to reply to the Scottish aspect of the Amendment and if he also intends to comment on the English aspect of it, how can he do that properly before hearing the views of hon. Members who represent English constituencies?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been an hon. Member for long enough to appreciate the normal proceedings in Committee.

Mr. Rees: The group of Amendments goes wider than affecting Scotland, but in so far as the Scottish aspect has had a fair airing and while I have the greatest sympathy for the intention of these proposals, I will show why they approach the matter wrongly.
The Scottish Amendments are designed to secure that not less than one-tenth of the voting peers are ordinarily resident in Scotland. There are technical arguments about the size of the population of Scotland and the question of over-representation, but I will consider the matter from the point of view of the spirit of the intention and I will not press that argument too far. In the same way there are a number of drafting weaknesses which would lead to curious results, but again I will deal with the spirit of the proposal. I will not go into the technical question of defining "domicile" and the similar matters which have been raised from a technical point of view. 3.30 a.m.
The Government have expressed their view in the White Paper, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) about representation

of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have done so in paragraphs 50 and 23. Paragraph 50 says,
There are strong constitutional arguments, based on the presence of Scottish peers in the House of Lords ever since 1707, and practical arguments arising from the existence of separate Scottish law…".
which is equally an argument for what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was arguing earlier. In paragraph 23 there is a rejection of the regional argument for reasons, which are put in that paragraph, about the inappropriateness of a House of Lords representationally based on regional interests in the sense of Members coming from different parts of the country numerically. Then there is also the Preamble to the Bill. We have had a great deal of discussion about the legal meaning of the Preamble, and the Attorney-General answered it the other day. As the hon. Member for Ayr pointed out, paragraph (b) states:
the inclusion in that House, and in the said body of voting members, of suitable numbers of peers with knowledge of and experience in matters of special concern to
Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.
There have been a number of points about Scottish representation and how the Bill affects the Scottish peerage. As the Scottish peers are, I am advised, peers by succession they will continue as non-voting peers under Clause 1 for their lifetimes. They will not get voting rights unless they are peers of first creation. I am also advised that there are now 25 created peers resident in Scotland, and also resident in Scotland about 40 hereditary peers of the United Kingdom or Great Britain peerages.

Sir D. Glover: Why does the hon. Gentleman not appear to realise that what is worrying hon. Members on both sides of the Committee is that a White Paper is nothing to do with an Act of Parliament, and that whatever is said in the White Paper the Government of the day can ignore it once the Bill is through the House?

Mr. Rees: I said that we have argued in recent weeks over the legal force of the Preamble. What lies between us is the argument on what should be written into the Bill, and the Government's argument is that the matter is better dealt


with in this way. That is the argument I was seeking to put.

Mr. Mat Arthur: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the residential point, it may help him to know, because it extends the argument, that of the 1,062 peers temporal and spiritual 115, according to my reading of various works of reference, would qualify as having residence in Scotland under the terms of my hon. Friend's Amendment. That represents 10·82 per cent. of the composition of the House of Lords. Therefore, my hon. Friend's proposal for a figure of one-tenth is not far removed from the present position.

Mr. Rees: The mathematics of this are very interesting. We are arguing in terms of about 230 members. The Government accept a need for regional representation, but think it is best not met by writing it into the Bill in the way the hon. Member suggests. What I am seeking to argue is that there is no more between us than that. We say there should be regional representation, and that is expressed in the Preamble, and the argument is about the best way of securing it, not about the need for it.

Mr. MacArthur: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Bill includes a provision which is a departure from a principle of the Constitution which has been observed without break for 262 years?

Mr. Rees: But the other point to bear in mind is that in 1963 the procedure for electing the 16 Scottish representative peers was abolished, but the Act enabled all holders of Scottish peerages to be Members of the House, which increased the number from 16 to about 75. I was not in the House then, but I doubt whether there was great argument, when the number rose in that way, that the Act of Union had been breached. That number is still there.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the Minister recognise that the 1963 Act did not breach the principle of the Act of Union? It increased Scottish representation, whereas in theory the Bill gets rid of it altogether.

Mr. Rees: There is also a decreased representation of everybody, because the number of active peers will fall. The important

point I shall come to later is that there is little doubt that the number of Scottish peers will be more than 16, that there is no question of there being under-representation as compared with the 16 dating back to the Act of Union.

Mr. Wylie: Is not the essential difference that the Act of Union recognised by statute adequate representation of the Scottish peerage in the Upper Chamber, and that that statutory recognition is now being abolished? Whatever may be intended, in practice the statutory provision is going.

Mr. Rees: I think that that is right, but the Government's point is that in practice anyway the number of peers will exceed the 16, and that there is need to consider the wider interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. There is a feeling that although Scotland has the special interest, which I freely concede, it is in this sense no different from Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Younger: Does the Minister realise that it would be totally unsatisfactory if we were now to go back to 16? That number out of 160 was 10 per cent. Out of 250, it would be very much less.

Mr. Rees: In other words, the hon. Gentleman is asking for an increase on the 16 in the Act of Union.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Rees: I do not want to give way again on this. We understand clearly the point at issue. What lies between us is the question of how this representation should be obtained. The Government's view, stated in the White Paper and the Preamble, is that it should and can be done in the normal way, by creation and so on, but that it should not be written into the Bill to give it statutory form. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the House on Second Reading, the Government had considered whether the Bill should include a Clause requiring a minimum number or proportion of Members of the voting House to be Scotsmen, but came to the conclusion that this would cause severe difficulties. One difficulty is that there are other parts of the United Kingdom to take into account.
Apart from the difficulties of principle, the amendment would impose a statutory obligation on the House of Lords in


certain circumstances to accept a resolution to pray Her Majesty to create more peers. There would be strong constitutional objections to any restriction on the freedom of the House to present, or refrain from presenting, such resolutions as it thinks fit, though there are ways of getting over this. I mention this because I think that it is more than just a drafting arrangement.
There is no doubt that the number of Scots among the new life peers who will be created to achieve a voting House of the size envisaged in the White Paper will give a sufficient number to obtain about the figure of a tenth. I accept that I am not being precise, just as I was not able to be precise when talking about numbers the other day. Given the nature of the need to have an overall majority other than the cross-bench peers, it is best left not in the absolute fashion which the hon. Member for Ayr suggests.

Mr. Orme: Will the Scottish peers have to be domiciled in Scotland? If they come to London, does their status change?

Mr. Rees: I accept that such difficulty could arise out of the Amendments but it does not in the case I am putting. The position of Scottish peers with a residence in London will be similar to that of Members of Parliament. In the choice, the intention would be to ensure that they were representative of Scotland in the sense to which I have referred. While I see the need to be perhaps a little more precise, it would be wrong to be too precise. The Committee knows what it is arguing about in the sense of representation from different parts of the United Kingdom, and it would be a mistake to be too precise about domicile.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend has referred to what other Members have in mind with regard to the rest of the country as being X, Y, Z. How can he say that? No hon. Member from any other part of the country has spoken in this debate apart from three Scottish Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I know that hon. Friends from Liverpool, Manchester and other areas have points they want to put.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Under-Secretary of Slate says we must not be too precise but that we must have a suitable

number and that it will be more than 16. Will suitability be related to each of the elements in the House? For example, will it be related to the 77 who are to be peers of succession, or to the 105 who are to be Government stooges, or to the 80 who are to be Opposition stooges, or to the 15 representing the Liberal Party? To break the thing down in this way would be a full time occupation for the Prime Minister, although many of us think that it would be a very good occupation for him.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is talking about white fish or the Prime Minister and I never know which is which. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh too quickly. The reason why I do not know which is which is because I am never clear what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) made an excellent point about the concentration of numbers, given the need to have the overall majority. This is one of the reasons why it is wrong to be precise about numbers. As to the choice of peers from the various types of peers paragraph 51 of the White Paper says there will be a committee which, it has been proposed, will review the composition of the reformed House and consider how far it includes members with knowledge of the various parts of the United Kingdom. Besides the hereditary peers, some of whom will become life peers, there are 25 created peers and about 40 hereditary peers, and it would be wrong to lay down what proportion the Scottish peers should form, just as it would be wrong to do this for other parts of the country.
There are a number of problems about Amendment 186. It involves a further breach of the general principle that voting rights should be confined to the created peers who had deposited voting declarations under Clause 3, and fulfil the attendance requirements under Clause 4. It would be difficult if this Amendment were accepted, to avoid repercussions in other areas, for example to enable non-voting peers to vote in any Committee considering legislation or other matters of exclusive concern to Wales, or any other Committee of the House. There are a number of drafting problems, but the overall weakness is


that if one did it in Scotland there are other aspects in the reformed Chamber which might lead to the cry that nonvoting peers should be able to play their part as well.
There are great difficulties in any scheme involving specific territorial representation. The best way is to rely on the Prime Minister of the day and his advice to the Sovereign on the creation of new peers, and on the consultations that would be carried out. The Government see the fears underlying the Amendments and are not unsympathetic to the general argument, but the view of the Government is that it is best done in the way suggested in the White Paper, and the Preamble, namely, to see, in general, that representation of these areas shall be carried out as described in the White Paper. For this reason I reject the method set out in the Amendments.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would you, Mr. Gourlay, at this stage be prepared to accept a Motion that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In that case I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do not insist on the latter part of the Motion. It would be to the general convenience of the Committee, particularly as we now have the benefit of the company of the Leader of the House, to have some indication of the Government's intentions about the course of business. It is normal to move a Motion of this kind somewhat earlier, so that the Government may have the opportunity to review the position and convey their intentions to hon. Members.
This Committee has now been sitting today for just over nine hours. Even allowing for the fact that, because of other business, we did not enter upon our consideration of this Bill until about a quarter to seven, we have done a good day—the equivalent of sitting well after midnight if we had started at 3.30. The Committee will recall that the former Leader of the House often expressed himself with great eloquence on the evil of very late sittings.
Moreover, it would be a convenient moment to adjourn our labours now. We have so far on this group of Amendments had a series of speeches on the Scottish question, replied to by an English—or, rather, Welsh—Minister. If we could continue when we resume to discuss the regional provisions raised by the Amendment being taken at the same time, on which one would hope, several English Members might be able to speak, it might then be convenient, to maintain harmony, I suppose, that a Scottish Minister should eventually reply.
In all seriousness, this is what is called in another context a natural break in the programme. Having discussed a major constitutional Measure through a considerable part of the night, and knowing that in less than 12 hours we shall in any event take up our discussions again under the announced programme of business, the Committee would be well advised, I suggest, to terminate its proceedings now.

Mr. Callaghan: I imagine that you would find it difficult, Mr. Gourlay, and a strain on your conscience, to report that we have made progress today. Whatever else we have done, we have hardly done that. Since a quarter to seven, we have managed to dispose of one Amendment. We are now in process of considering the second. When we reach a conclusion is for the Chair to say, not for me, but, looking at the Notice Paper. I am sure that, with a little diligence and with the care which the Committee has been bestowing on the Amendments so far, it should be possible for us to make some further progress.
Disappointed though I am with the progress we have made up to now, I think that, for example, it should be possible to finish Clause 2 without difficulty before we adjourn our labours. There are only two Amendments to be taken on Clause 3, and it should be possible to dispose of that. With normal progress, we should be able to start on Clause 4. However, I should not cavil if my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) wished to go home after Clause 3. I should not quarrel with him on that, but Clauses 2 and 3 are obvious certainties on any normal consideration of a Bill.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) seems to be expressing some disinclination. He seems to be losing his taste for the fight. I beg him to gird his loins again. His Front Bench has been replenished and refreshed. Clearly, they are in full voice. We have heard from the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party, and from the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). There have been more interventions from them than from the whole Front Bench before they established their coup d'état an hour or two ago. These two are a great improvement. I do not think that we ought to ask where the others are. At least we are getting some contributions from the two hon. Gentlemen. When General Ormskirk and Field Marshal Chigwell are setting such a good example, it is not for the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames to be faint hearted. There is work to be done; there is a battle to be fought; the Bill has to be examined—[HON. MEMBERS: "Steady as she gees! "]—If we had maintained the balance of payments surplus which we had when I uttered that comment, if there had not been an outbreak of war in the Middle East, it might have been more accurate.
I agree that some hon. Members are getting a little impatient about our proceedings. I listened to the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) who wanted to draw the discussion on the Amendment to a close three-quarters of an hour ago. He clearly thought that he had heard enough to be able to make up his mind. Indeed, he was so certain what the answer was that he did not even wish to hear my hon. Friend reply to the debate. With his well known perspicacity, I can understand that and sympathise with him. Indeed, if the Chair had accepted his Motion and the hon. Gentleman had pushed it, I should have voted with him, because I, too, had heard enough to make up my mind on the Clause. I think that, like many others, the hon. Gentlemen feels that some of the opposition to the Bill is a little excessive and for that reason he wished the debate to conclude.

Mr. Clegg: Mr. Clegg rose——

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to throw away my support after I have offered it to him.

Mr. Clegg: I do not want to throw away anybody's support. The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my motives. I was merely trying a bit of tit for tat.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman must know that in the House of Commons one should never deal in motives. One can deal only with the consequences of one's actions, and a consequence of the hon. Gentleman's action would have been to take me into the Division Lobby with him. I am sorry that I shall not now have the opportunity to follow what would have been his refreshing leadership.

Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has heard enough to allow us to put the Closure, but we have not heard enough. We have not heard anything about the English regions. We have discussed only Scotland. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that we want to return refreshed to discuss this matter as it affects the English and Welsh regions as well as Scotland.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman does himself less than justice. To me he looks as fresh as paint. He is applying himself with cogency and determination to these problems and I congratulate him on so doing. I want to encourage him to go further. However, in the debate on the White Paper and on Second Reading he heard the Government's view about regional representation. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has attended any party meetings to question his own Front Bench about it, or what answers he got if he did. He might get better answers if he asked the new Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Ormskirk. If he asked, he would know what was in everybody's mind, but I do not accept that the hon. Member is unable to make up his mind on this question.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Fylde that it is time that we made up our minds on the Amendment and the Clause. If the hon. Gentleman chooses


at some further time to try to cut off the debate at the moment when we have had full discussion, I shall again be willing to join him, but at the moment I recommend to the Committee that our progress, although slight, has been dogged and determined and that we should pursue that course. I want the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames not to give up, but to continue discussion. I am sure that we shall then make some progress and be able to see how the discussions go, and I am sure that we could then adjourn at a mutually agreeable time in due course.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Powell: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), after hearing the manner in which his Motion has been received by the Home Secretary, will already have decided not to withdraw it, but to submit it to the Committee in due course for decision.
One of the remarks of the Home Secretary, which I think will not have been lost on the Committee, was his reference to motives. He said that in this Committee we are wise not to pay attention to motives, but to what is actually said. [HON. MEMBERS: "To the consequences."] I am much obliged. That makes it stronger still. One of the difficulties which the Committee has been contending with throughout its consideration of this Bill is that the Government is continually appealing to its motives with regard to what will eventually happen if and when this Bill is passed, asking the Committee to take these on trust, but declining to be precise about them and say what will be the consequences of the Bill.
There is a consideration which I think goes to strengthen the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend. This Motion was moved at the first time when, in the wisdom of the Chair, it was acceptable after the first Amendment had been disposed of, though I must say I thought, incidentally, that the Home Secretary insufficiently appreciated the importance of the work which the Committee had done in disposing of the question of the payment of members of the other House. The fact that he regarded that debate as such

trivial progress is another illustration of the inadequate importance which the Government attach to the fundamental constitutional matters which are being brought up in every single Amendment which we have to deal with. Indeed, I would say that very real progress was made, and perhaps progress was made too fast by this Committee in having disposed of the major question of payment of members of the new chamber.
However, that is the question which has been disposed of, after which, for the first time, we are now able to consider whether we shall report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Towards the end of the debate a very remarkable event occurred, and one which, in itself, would justify, if not necessitate, an opportunity for both sides of the Committee to reconsider their position. Very shortly before that debate ended, one of the hon. Members opposite—1 think it may have been the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—succeeded in eliciting from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) the fact that payment of Members of the other House had been an integral part of the agreement or bargain between the two sides of the House, upon the basis of which the House, and subsequently the Committee, have been proceeding.
Having established that, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne put another question to my right hon. Friend. He asked whether the Opposition were in any way aware that the Government intended to depart from or break that part of the agreement. My right hon. Friend indicated a negative. The hon. Member then finally asked whether there was any agreement upon this modification of the agreement, and once again my right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that there was no such agreement. So the Committee is now faced—and this is the first opportunity we have had to consider this matter—with an admitted breach of what nobody disputes is an important element in the agreement, on the basis of which this Bill has hitherto been considered.
I suggest that this is so major a matter, and so alters the background against which the Bill is being considered, that it is imperatively incumbent upon the Government to give the Committee an


opportunity to reconsider the position. I say both sides, but it is not only both sides of the Committee. The agreement embraces another place and the faith upon which a decision on the White Paper was taken in another place. Quite obviously, consultations will be necessary between members in another place and Members of the House of Commons upon what are to be the consequences on the future progress, if any. of this Bill of a breach of an admittedly vital element of the agreement, on the strength of which we have hitherto been proceeding. That consideration alone, if there were not those which have been urged by my right hon. Friend, would make it not only desirable but absolutely necessary that this Motion should now be accepted by the Committee.

Mr. Michael Foot: Some time ago, at about 12 midnight, I sought to move the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has moved. I sought to do so then for reasons which are still substantive and which are additional to the reasons which have been urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
An incident occurred. I do not think that the Home Secretary was able to be present at the time it occurred, and it may be that some other hon. Members were not present, but I think it would have been desirable, if it had been possible, to deal with the matter then by the method which is now available to us, thanks to the acceptance of the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman.
I am strongly opposed at any time, if it can possibly be avoided, to a clash between the back benches of the House and the Chair. It is right that hon. Members should accept the authority of the Chair. They are Members of the House and that is one of the obligations which they must accept. It is highly dangerous if there is a clash between the House and the Chair leading to the only method that can be applied in that situation, a Motion on the Order Paper. I am strongly opposed to such Motions, and it would have been wrong in such circumstances for anybody to have thought in those terms.
For a few minutes there was a situation in which some hon. Members, seized by the emotion of the Amendment, made noises, shouts or objections, which might

have appeared to be reflecting not merely on the actions of the Treasury Bench but on the Chair. Hon. Members who were in the House at the time will recall the situation. That is why at the time I thought it right to try to dispose of the matter in a way which would avoid any such clash, and I am still in favour of that. Therefore, my first reason for supporting the Motion is that it would enable us to dispose of the incident in a way which would be satisfactory to the whole Committee.
I do not blame the Home Secretary for not having dealt with this in his first remarks in dealing with the Motion. He, or the Leader of the House, may deal with it later. What happened was this. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was speaking; he gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and it was assumed by the Whip in charge, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had concluded his speech, and, therefore, he moved the Closure, which was accepted by the Chair.
I readily understand that there are many precedents for the Chair accepting a Closure moved by hon. Members after a certain period. It was not possible, perhaps, for my hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion. Some of us thought that he could have taken the opportunity of withdrawing the Motion when he saw that it had been moved in circumstances of misapprehension, and that would have disposed of the incident. But once the Chair had put the Question, that procedure for remedying the situation was made more difficult.
Whatever the rights or wrongs, I think that it would be desirable, from the Committee's point of view, that the Government should say that they do not regard the way in which the Closure was moved then as being comparable to the normal circumstances in which closures are moved.
We all know that the Closure is sometimes moved in the middle of a speech just before 10 o'clock. We all know that a moment or so before 10 o'clock, when an hon. Member may be speaking, a Patronage Secretary may move the Closure. That is a precedent perhaps


for the acceptance of the Closure by the Chair on this occasion. But those circumstances are different from those prevailing when my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) had the Closure moved in the middle of his speech.
Many Members, on both sides, who have seen the operation of the Closure Motion, have generally accepted the position that it is not moved in the middle of a Member's speech. The Closure is certainly not moved at the moment when an hon. Member is giving way to somebody else. Therefore, it would be appropriate if, on behalf of the Government, an apology was made. I do not think that anybody has to make a statement that he has perpetrated an appalling sin. But it would assist the courtesies of the Committee, and also be a guarantee for the future, if some form of regret was expressed by the Government on that matter. It would also be helpful to the conduct of our operations on the Bill.
The Home Secretary has not been present the whole time. I do not criticise him for that. I know that Ministers have heavy engagements. Sometimes they have to be absent when the most important Bills are going through. I do not criticise my right hon. Friend on that count, but when he says, as part of his argument, that we have not made as much progress as he would have desired, I point out that that is because we spent about an hour discussing that incident. The Home Secretary cannot claim, because he was not here, that that hour was wasted. He has no right to claim that. Some of us were seeking to remedy a situation which we thought ought to be remedied in the interests of the Committee. That incident has partly delayed these proceedings. Had it not been for that incident, we might have reached the end of the Clause and the end of these proceedings, instead of having to resume this afternoon at half-past three.
It is no use the Home Secretary saying that that incident does not affect how much progress we have made, I say that for the future of the Bill. The Home Secretary is extremely experienced in these matters. He knows how tempers flare. Tempers can flare partly because of such incidents—and tempers did flare.

I think that everyone agrees that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was treated in what appeared to be a shabby manner. I do not believe that that was the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, because he does not deal with Members in that way. Therefore, I hope that some form or regret will be expressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made a lengthy speech at the beginning of the Committee proceedings which I can understand the Government not liking very much. But, as I said earlier, I think that the Committee owes a great debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend for the way in which he launched the discussion. It would be intolerable if the Closure was moved on my hon. Friend because of any feeling of resentment for what he had done on a previous occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham shakes his head. If he says that the Closure was not moved for that reason, I accept it at once and do not proceed with the point further. But I hope that the Government will express regret for the incident that occurred.
That is the first reason why I think the Motion should be accepted.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Ridley: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that it might have been that because the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) had unearthed a breach of that piece of the bargain the Government Front Bench saw fit to terminate his very telling speech?

Mr. Foot: I concede that that might be an explanation, but I have accepted the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham that the motive suggested for curtailing my hon. Friend's speech was not the reason why that was done. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham moved the Closure at the point that he did because he thought that my hon. Friend had reached the end of his speech. Having accepted that, I cannot proceed to adopt an argument which would be a denial of that acceptance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It might add something to the point made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) if I remind the Committee


that when my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) elicited this information from the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) the right hon. Gentleman vanished, and he has not put in an appearance since.

Mr. Foot: That is a different question. It is no mystery why the right hon. Gentleman has left. Everybody knows why he has cleared off. We cannot have any half secrets being spilled on the Floor of the House of Commons. That would be too disgraceful.
Now I come to the second part of the Home Secretary's statement on this Motion. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend did not get up and say that he accepted it. If he had done so, we would be on our way home now—and we all want that—and it would have been much more helpful for the Committee generally.
The Government say that we have not made a great deal of progress on this Bill if one compares it with some other Bills. But this is no ordinary Bill. This is why it is causing such difficulties. It is an extraordinary Bill. It is a Bill which proposes to alter the nature of Parliament. A Measure of this nature has to be considered in great detail, and with great care.
A large number of Amendments which have been put down have not been called. I am not criticising the Chair for not calling them, but we must have some discussion at some stage in our proceedings about some of the Amendments which were put down by the Government and then withdrawn. We ought to have time—and this is a further reason for accepting the Motion—to discuss a peculiar situation whereby certain Amendments which were put down by the Government have been withdrawn, thereby possibly preventing a discussion of some of these Amendments on Report. I think that we should hear from the Government why they have withdrawn some of those Amendments. It may be that it is convenient for them to do that now, or alternatively to put the Amendments back on the Notice Paper.
The major reason why the Government have no right to complain about the progress that has been made, and

therefore no right to resist the Motion, is that we have discussed questions which on previous occasions might have been incorporated in whole Bills. There could be a whole Bill dealing with some of the questions that are now incorporated in Clauses which are not being explained. There could be a whole Bill to say what is to be the regional representation in the other place. There could be a whole Bill to say what the proposal is for remuneration in the other place. There could be whole Bills which would have to go through under these procedures, but instead of that the Government have decided to incorporate these matters in a general Bill, even though they have not reached a conclusion on many of these matters.
The Government have not decided what is to be the size of the new second Chamber. They have not decided how many are to be appointed from Scotland. They have not decided how many are to come from the other regions. They have not decided how much members in the other place are to be paid. They have not decided any of those questions, and, therefore, they have presented to us a Bill which is wide open for Amendment.
Some of us noticed this during Second Reading and pointed it out to the Government. We said, "If you produce a Bill like this, you cannot expect it to go through in the normal fashion". That prophecy was fulfilled and will continue to be fulfilled, because this is not an ordinary Measure, and, therefore, will not go through in an ordinary fashion. The pace at which it proceeds cannot legitimately be compared with the pace of the passage of a normal Bill. Therefore, the Home Secretary's major argument falls to the ground. His speech was the kind of speech which is made on the Finance Bill at 4 o'clock in the morning. I am not saying anything derogatory about Finance Bills, but one characteristic of this old-fashioned House is that constitutional Bills have to be dealt with in a special way.
I remember some lengthy debates about constitutional Bills. We insisted that the Bill on Commonwealth immigration was a constitutional Bill and I remember that the Guillotine had to be imposed on that by a Conservative Government. I could give a long list of constitutional


Bills which had to be debated on the Floor, and this is a bigger constitutional Bill than those. It will decide how we operate in this Parliament for the rest of this century. It will decide which powers are to be left here. Until one decides what that place is like, one cannot decide what powers are left to us.
The reason the Government thought they could get the Measure through without so much commotion and difficulty was that they thought they had the support of the Opposition. I think that they have legitimate grounds for complaint. They have been done a dirty trick. They should have known they could not, and the reason they thought they could was that they had what used to be called a copper-bottomed guarantee from the leaders of the Opposition that the Bill would go through.

Mr. Onslow: An additional reason why the Government were mistaken in thinking it would go through quickly was contained in the Home Secretary's admission, unique in debate, that he was open to argument and had already been swayed by what had been said about payment. Why, therefore, should he not expect the House of Commons to try to convince him on other important matters?

Mr. Foot: If I had believed that it was our Motion which enabled change, I would be even more encouraged to sustain the present debate, which I will sustain, if I had thought that that was the only reason. I think that there were three reasons. We have not been given one, but I give credit to the Home Secretary for bowing to the will of the Committee. The Government wanted to ensure that they were going to accommodate those of us who had broken down the Government's defences so certainly that the Government should have come along and asked what we wanted.
Once they were in this insecure position, they should have asked us what we wanted. Instead of that, they have produced something which is worse still. That cannot have been the only reason, although it may have been a contributory factor, but that does not alter the fact that the Government proceeded with the Bill, which they cannot compare with other Bills, because of this assumption

of the Opposition's support. I say no more about how they have been betrayed. They have every right to complain, although they have changed and removed the payment Clause which was foreshadowed in the White Paper.
But, although the nature of the bargain has been altered, and this may alter the reception which the Bill is given in another place, if it ever gets there, there has been no substantial objection from the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Barnet, who underlined the fact that there has been a change, must also acknowledge that. If they objected to the removal of the Clause, they had only to participate in this debate but they have refused to do so. It is no exaggeration to say that this refusal is a sign that they accept the Bill now as they accepted it before.
Even so, the Government are to proceed with the Bill, so those of us who oppose it have all the more right to press our opposition. Half the parties to the bargain are not prepared to come here and defend the Bill, as they are under an obligation to do. So far from that lengthening our proceedings, it should abbreviate them. It is monstrous that the argument put by one side of the House, not only to the Government but to their own leadership, should not be answered. This also greatly lengthens our proceedings. So long as this extraordinary arrangement continues, the debates will continue as well.

Sir D. Glover: To be fair, the hon. Member will remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said earlier this evening that he thought that anyone doing a useful job should be paid the rate for the job. What he did not explain was whether he thought that, under the Bill, anyone in another place would be doing a useful job.

Mr. Foot: That is one part of the argument, and I think that he assumed that they would be doing a good job. But no one could say that that single sentence from the right hon. Gentleman was an answer to the elaborate arguments presented from that side of the House. The arguments about pay are all interwoven with the question whether the Bill can be operated at all. There have been arguments from many different angles pointed to the fact that the Bill


cannot operate or seeking to prove that we are being asked to pass something which is not defined. These propositions from both sides of the House have not been satisfactorily answered and that is why our proceedings have been and will continue to be so lengthy. The Government and, even more, the Opposition Front Bench, appear to say, "We regard your arguments as derisory and not worth discussing," although they were treated in a courteous way by the Home Secretary. He did not go into them in detail, but they were arguments for which he himself was responsible to the House.
We had a few answers from the right hon. Member for Barnet about the bargain, and if it is possible for the right hon. Member for Barnet to say what was in the bargain it should be possible for the other people concerned to say what was in it. My claim is that if the Government wish the Bill to go through more speedily they will be in difficulty, because our objections are rooted and strong, and no reasons have been given which lead us to take a different view. The Government have rejected my advice on every occasion I have offered it, but they must not think that that has proved their wisdom. The state of the debate indicates that it might be wiser for them occasionally to heed my advice.
4.30 a.m.
The Government often do not listen sufficiently to what is said from the back benches. We are to debate other Measures concerned with strikes, where we shall put forward arguments. We wonder whether the Government will listen to them. We shall fight this Bill Clause by Clause, although we know that the Government will not alter any of the Clauses. If the Government want to get it through they must be prepared to argue the issues and present their case against the formidable arguments put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
This is not a case of filibustering or obstruction. The Home Secretary did not use those words, but the manner in which he intervened recently and a few hours ago indicated that he thought that that was what was happeninig. We are not filibustering; we are using the delaying powers of the House of Commons,

as we are entitled to do—for the purposes of trying to extract a whole series of answers to some very complicated questions from both sides of the Committee. We have had little success in getting those answers so far. The proceedings are bound to be lengthened and lengthened almost to an interminable extent if the answers are not forthcoming. The purpose of having lengthy Committee stages is to enforce good manners on both Front Benches—to make them aware of the need to answer our questions.
I tell my hon. Friend that it is not only a question of answering hon. Members; the Bill will have to go to the other place. It will be debated there during a lengthy Committee stage. Members of the other place will study what has been said here, and what answers have been given. They will discover that what is being proposed is something different from what was proposed before. They will also discover that when this fact prompted a series of arguments we were not supplied with answers from either Front Bench.

Mr. Callaghan: I take exception to my hon. Friend's remarks. Three-quarters of an hour ago my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made a full and comprehensive statement.

Mr. Heffer: The Under-Secretary did not even hear all the debate.

Mr. Callaghan: I heard him answer the debate in the most courteous manner. He took all the points that had been raised. Perhaps there was disagreement, but it is unfair to say that he did not reply to the arguments in full.

Mr. Foot: I acknowledge that when replying on this occasion, and when he replied to the debate yesterday, the Under-Secretary answered many of the points which were raised, but, as we have been pointing out all the time, some of the Amendments that we were discussing before the Chair accepted the Motion deal not only with Scotland or Wales, but with England.
The Under-Secretary showed application and courtesy in replying, but he was unable to answer the arguments which hon. Members who represent English constituencies could make because they had not had an opportunity to make them. This illustrates what I say about this


series of Amendments embracing the whole question of regional government and the relationship between the House of Lords and the Commission which my right hon. Friend has set up to deal with regional government.
The Under-Secretary is not in a position to answer our questions about the bargain that was made, about what was in the bargain or what has been removed from it because he was not a party to it. Only the party leaders can deal with that. The House of Lords will be established on the basis of a settlement reached in secret between three or four men with only the haziest of guidelines having been given by the House of Commons. It will, therefore, be an outrage if we allow the Bill to pass. It is already an outrage in view of the opposition from the whole Labour Party.
The Government are in difficulties at half-past-four in the morning because of the nature of the Bill. The Cabinet should reconsider the matter in the light of what has occurred in Parliament. My right hon. Friends must think of the days and weeks that we have yet to spend on the Measure and the consequences elsewhere. I trust, therefore, that, in the interest of the Government, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Home Secretary will accept the Motion and allow time for the Government to reflect on these matters.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The Committee is in difficulty in making progress with the Bill. The Home Secretary said earlier that he was not worried about this because whatever hon. Members said the Government would have a majority. While that may be true, it is obvious that the powers of obstruction and our ability to probe the Measure line by line are so great that the right hon. Gentleman must adopt a new approach.
Whatever may have happened in the past—whatever bargain might have been arrived at—it is time that the parties got together and said "We are chucking the Bill". That decision could be taken jointly by the parties so that no blame would be attached to anybody. It would be the joint decision and responsibility of the party leaders. There would be no blame to either party. Both Front Benches, being equally responsible for having got the House of Commons into

this nonsense, would be equally responsible for pulling the House of Commons out of the impasse into which they have manoeuvred us.
I am sure that this is a fair reason why the debate should now be adjourned, so that there could be conversations between the leaderships of the two main parties. Otherwise, nothing will be done but damage to the House of Commons, damage to the House of Lords, and damage to the constitution as a whole. That is a very strong reason why my right hon. Friend's Motion should be adopted.

Mr. Heffer: I support the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. I was very surprised by the view of the Home Secretary when he said he did not think we had much progress. I do not know what progress he wants. We have been discussing the Bill for only four days, and during those four days on a very important constitutional Bill we have got past Clause 1 and are now on Clause 2, and I would have thought we were making rather good progress with Clause 2.
I cannot understand why the Home Secretary has any complaint at all. We have been extremely co-operative. For example, we did not have a discussion on the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I am not making any complaint about that, but there was a whole series of Amendments which were not called, and that meant that people who did not have an opportunity to speak to those Amendments did not have an opportunity to speak on the Clause as a whole.
I am not making a complaint about that, but the right hon. Gentleman can hardly complain that we have not made any progress. It seems to me that we have made great progress—indeed, that we are galloping, positively galloping, through the Bill. If we are not careful we shall get the Bill completed by the Summer Recess.
That would terrify me, because I think that we ought minutely to examine every detail of the Bill, precisely because it really is a most important Bill, despite what hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal bench think. This very important constitutional Bill, if it is passed, will be with us for a very long time indeed.
I remember reading the Preamble to the 1911 Act. That was to have been a temporary Measure. It has been with us a long time. Will this one be a temporary Measure? To be amended—when? A hundred years from now? No doubt, by that time we shall have some 5,000 or 7,000 Members of another place. I really do not think that there can be any objection to the progress which is being made, and the case has been made out very well indeed for the termination of this debate this evening.
There is the very serious point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) raised, and that was that certain information was gathered from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who pointed out that the White Paper was the ebodiment of the agreement, but that the agreement had now been breached and that there was no discussion between the two Front Benches about the question of remuneration.
4.45 a.m.
If I were on the back benches opposite, I should be asking the leaders of my party for a rather rapid party meeting. In their case I think that it is called the 1922 Committee. I should want to put some pertinent questions. We also have the right now to put some pertinent questions to my right hon. Friends. I am asking now for a party meeting to discuss a new development resulting from the statements that were made.
Our discussion should also be terminated to allow time for right hon. Gentlemen who should be on the Front Bench opposite to get here. We should go home and let them get out of their beds, baths, and so on, and be here tomorrow to have the opportunity first to meet their Members at a party meeting and then to appear in the Chamber to answer some of the points put to them.
It is obvious that the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) was misunderstood when he interrupted the Minister and asked that we should have a Closure then. He was merely trying to establish whether this could be done to a Front Bench speaker as it was done to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr.Sheldon). It was a point that I should have liked to put to the Chair, but there were so many points of order

at that time that I did not think that one more would help the proceedings. It might have helped to hold up progress a little, and I would not want to be accused of holding up progress on the Bill.
It was important to try to establish back-benchers' rights to move the Closure even though a Front Bench speaker was speaking, just as that was done to my hon. Friend. We still have not established this principle, although it can, and perhaps should, be established. It could well be established, for example, when we debate the White Paper, "In Place of Strife". I can think of many examples where we could establish this principle of terminating the discussion rather rapidly because the discussion is unnecessary and we have pretty well heard it all before. We should now report Progress. I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the hon. Gentleman.
I have one last point to put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who looked at me as though I did not want to be here when Clauses 2, 3 and 4, and so on, were discussed. I want to disillusion him. I shall be here for Clauses 2, 3, 4, and right up to Clause 20 and the Schedules—the whole lot. I shall be here to argue and put my point of view; and I hope that my hon. Friends will do likewise.
The most sensible thing to do is to withdraw the Bill and accept some sort of Bill along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. It is high time that the Government realised that we are serious about this. We are not playing games. We may make jokes, but we are not playing games. We are getting a little fed up with not being listened to.
We are told that the Government have the majority for the Bill. I have been looking at the Division lists. The biggest vote comes from hon. Members who have now gone home. There is a massive apathy among the majority of Members towards the Bill. The last Division total was just over 200 Members. Where are the other 430? They have gone home because they feel that the Bill is not worth bothering with and that, too, is an indication to the Government of the feeling of the Committee about it.

Mr. Michael Alison: Last time we heard the Home Secretary


speaking in such a tone was in the spring and early summer of 1965, when he was trying to get his immortal and notorious Finance Bill through Committee. I recall the occasions in the early hours when he tried to persuade the Committee to go on a little longer. It was difficult to work out then which was the greater catastrophe—his half-baked Measure or the way in which he sought to batter it through.
But one thing emerged clearly. The net result of battering through a half-baked Measure was an Act which has never since been able to stand on its own feet. I suspect that we are repeating the process now. I discern in his tone of buoyant but somewhat false bonhomie the maniacal tone that he displayed then.
This sort of thing should not happen with a Bill of this kind. The lesson he should have learnt in 1965 was that we should hasten slowly; and it is certainly imperative to hasten slowly with this Bill. What is the hurry? I cannot understand why he wants to press on at such speed in the small hours. There is plenty of time. Nothing fundamental will be changed by the Bill until after the next General Election.
We have to look for formulae for the important changes to follow. What is the hurry? There are at least 18 months before any General Election need come to pass, and there are several weeks before Easter. There are plenty of weeks after the Easter and Whitsun Recesses, and there is the whole of the following Session. It is impossible to see why we should not be allowed to take a serious and leisurely consideration of the Bill, instead of being pressed on in the small hours.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that we were not making enough progress but progress is a multi-dimensional concept. One of the ways in which we have been progressing has been in depth. It is clear that the depths of surprise, the lack of clarity, and the mystery surrounding the Preamble and Clauses 1 and 2 have only just begun to be explored. It is incumbent upon the Committee to delve deeper if it is to do its job properly. That does not mean that we are wasting time, because we should not go forward until we are sure that the ground beneath is solid.
To be sure of that we have to dig down. We have been exploring the Bill in considerable depth. There is no need to make progress in a forward direction as Mr. Toad sought to do. It is better to make certain that we are standing on solid ground. My impression is that the ground is extremely uncertain, and that we must explore this in greater depth. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will admit that progress can be made in depth, and need not be just in a forward direction for the Committee to perform a valuable task.
I went into the Tea Room recently and saw that Wednesday's papers had arrived. The results of the Northern Ireland General Election are now receiving their first considered analyses. This group of Amendments relates to subsection (b) of the Preamble, dealing with the need to have representatives of the countries, nations and regions of the United Kingdom. The Committee must be able to consider the implications of what has happened in Northern Ireland and whether any modifications are necessary in the light of that. Is true representation of Northern Ireland, which must come into the category of special representation, under subsection (b) of the Preamble, to include some special religious representations? At first sight, it is difficult to see whether the cleavage in Northern Ireland is between the Catholics and Protestants, or between extremists on either side and the moderates, or between the working-class and the middle-class.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the Motion.

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Alison: I infer that that is a rebuke, Mr. Irving, though I am not sure whether you wish me to explore the matter in greater depth rather than leap further into the wide area which is now opened up.
Inevitably now, the tenor of the Preamble, with its references to the nations, countries and regions of the United Kingdom, gives an inadequate definition in respect of Northern Ireland.


We should now pause to consider the developments there in relation to the Amendments touching the question whether there should be special reference to the new factors emerging in Northern Ireland.
Those considerations add force to the case put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, that on a constitutional Bill of this importance we should go a step at a time, taking into account the new evidence and material which emerge, so that we produce at the end of the day a Bill which has some relation with reality. We must digest the results of our exploratory moves into the essence and substratum of the Bill. On the progress made so far, we should be able to pause and consider the new evidence and the material which will appear presently in HANSARD, enabling ourselves to make real steps forward rather than the leaps in the dark which the ex-Chancellor is anxious for the Committee to make, and which he was anxious for the country to make, without the necessary evidence.

Mr. Orme: I support the Motion. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealt with the matter in a most offhand way when opposing the Motion. He said that we had not made enough Progress, that he wanted to get Clauses 2, 3 and 4 and he chided the Committee for not getting on. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend imagines that he will make much progress if he continues in that fashion.
There has been no endeavour to move the Closure for quite a time now. There may be something in the thought that the Government have not got 100 Members present to support them. We may be able to test that in a short time. Perhaps they have made arrangements to have Members here. I understand that there are Government supporters at parties and elsewhere at the moment, and, no doubt, they can be brought in.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is running the risk of having the Closure moved in the middle of his own speech if he makes offensive remarks like that about his own Front Bench.

Mr. Orme: I am not being offensive. I am stating matters of fact.
So far, on this side, we have left a great deal of the weight to lie on the shoulders of my hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), to whom we owe a great debt, and for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and one or two others. During the coming weeks and months on the Bill, we shall gird ourselves for the battle and we shall make sure that the burden of opposition is more evenly spread. The Government have not learned anything, and, apparently, they will never learn anything about the feeling in the House. That goes for the Opposition Front Bench as well.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Ormskirk. the "Leader of the Opposition", has now returned to his place. The Government should have time to re-examine the whole situation and in the hours between now and half-past three this afternoon they could meditate on the debate so far. The Government and the Committee are reaching an impasse. Procedures are available to back benchers not to filibuster, but to protect their constitutional rights in a democratic assembly, and if Parliament is not to become a charade and the prerogative of the Whips, hon. Members will have to use those resources.
My right hon. Friend defended the manner in which his hon. Friend replied to the previous debate. We were all aware of my hon. Friend's courtesy and we all have a great respect for him and his ability. What my right hon. Friend did not say, however, was that in an earlier debate on a fundamental issue, the remuneration of peers, there was no reply from the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was cut short when he was going to the kernel of the issue as he elicited information from the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). The Home Secretary is responsible for answering my hon. Friend's questions, however, and he should find a way of doing so.
Many hon. Members wanted to speak in the debate about the remuneration of peers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was dealing with an important constitutional issue when his speech was cut short and he was not allowed to develop his argument. Although he tried to keep his words to the minimum, the right hon. Member for


Barnet gave away more than we had heard in two or three days' debate.

Mr. Powell: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, to which we shall come in due course, will give the Home Secretary an opportunity to make good these omissions?

Mr. Orme: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that fact. We cannot afford to let Clause 2 go through as easily as we allowed Clause 1 to pass. Perhaps we shall be able to arrange a convenient time for the Home Secretary to clear up these matters. It is interesting to note that in our many hours of debate support for the Bill has come only from the Government Front Bench.
It is no secret that most of my hon. Friends, who perhaps are not here to take part in our debates, nevertheless have no enthusiasm whatsoever for the Bill. In fact, when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) talks about having party meetings to rediscuss this matter, I must remind him of a meeting he and I attended not very long ago. It was a silent meeting. I have never been to a party meeting in my life—and I do not suppose right hon. and hon. Members opposite have experienced this—where the Lord Chancellor and other senior Ministers came to give the Government case, and nobody spoke. So I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Walton——

Sir D. Glover: Perhaps the hon. Member will at least admit that it was much more convincing than anything they have said in public.

Mr. Orme: No. What I am trying to say is that the conspiracy—it was not a planned conspiracy but a conspiracy of silence—was in the nature of basic opposition to the Bill.
I think that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Walton and Ebbw Vale have said, we have reached a serious situation. There are hon. Members on this side who, for very different reasons to hon. Members opposite, are opposing the Bill, and in consequence they are raising very broad constitutional issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale asked that the Government should

reconsider their attitude and the fact that we have not had a proper reply to the debate on the regions.
Many of us want to debate this issue of the regions. It is clear that the question of the representation of the regions, the balance of this representation, how it should be dealt with, and whether the representatives should be domiciled in the area or not, raises all sorts of issues. The more one looks at it, the more ludicrous it becomes, but it raises issues of a fundamental character which have got to be discussed.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, who has a standing probably second to none in this House in his knowledge and understanding of Parliamentary democracy, that Parliamentary democracy is under attack at the moment from many quarters in this country.

The Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to relate his remarks to the Motion before the Committee.

Mr. Orme: I accept that I was going wide of the mark, Mr. Irving.
The point I was trying to make is that these basic issues have not been covered in the previous debate, which is still, I understand, going on. I hope we are going to have another reply from the Home Secretary. It is at a time like this that the Government should take cognisance of the opinions which have been expressed in the House, and accept the Motion.
Pressing on with the Bill is not like pressing on with the Finance Bill, when every two hours a Closure could be moved and progress made. The Home Secretary will not make progress between now and 2 o'clock if he continues to resist the Motion. I urge the Committee to pass the Motion, and I urge my right hon. Friends to vote for the Motion, so that the Government may have time to reconsider the Measure.

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Shortly after 5 o'clock the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that he understood that there were members of the Government at parties. I do not know which members of the Government or which parties, but I hope that at a later stage, when it will perhaps be in order, he will elaborate that point.

Mr. Orme: I understand that there are functions taking place in connection with the American visitors, but probably those parties are now over.

Mr. Gilmour: Probably they are.
This is the first time that I have been able to take part in the deliberations of the Committee. I have been thwarted first by morning sittings which, like this Bill, were a brainchild of the Secretary of State for Social Services. As I sit on Committees on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, I cannot take part in morning sittings on the Bill. The second reason why I have not taken part is the Government's habit of moving the Closure when a great many hon. Members of the Committee still wish to speak.
The moving of the Closure is one of the many reasons why the Committee should support the Motion moved by my right hen. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) moved the Closure in the middle of a speech by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) during an intervention. It is important for the proper deliberations of the Committee that hon. Members should give way to each other. Great damage would be done if hon. Members were afraid to give way to other hon. Members for fear of having the Closure moved when they sit down.
Another reason why we ought to adjourn is so that we may have clear guidance from the Leader of the House. He does not seem to consider the deliberations of the Committee to be as important as we would have hoped and he has not been here very much. It would be helpful if this afternoon he gave us an undertaking, so that the operations of the hon. Member for Rotherham will in future be curbed.
The Home Secretary said that we had not made progress. I disagree. We have been considering what appear to be two widely different matters, payment and regional representation, but which are in the Bill intimately connected. They have a feature in common, in that the Government do not wish to have these matters entered into the Bill, whereas most of the active Members of the Committee—those who pay attention to what is said, not those who just vote—do

not believe that this is the right way in which to legislate. They believe that the questions of payment or non-payment and regional representation should be decided in the Bill.
As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, it is difficult to ensure that anyone will stay bought. In making that point he said that there was a Conservative Government in power in 1911. It is slightly paradoxical that, in discussing a Bill which is designed to end the hereditary principle, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale should seek to extend the heredity of the Conservative Party back to 1711. Although there were Tories and what can loosely be called a Tory Party at that stage, I have never heard that its ancestry could be dated back to 1711. I think that the modern Conservative Party can be dated from 1797, 1832 or 1836. However, I am delighted to have its ancestry extended in this way. One of my right hon. Friends says that it goes back to Richard II. That is better still.
The second reason why the Motion should be accepted is that the Government must realise that this is not the way to legislate. What they intend to happen should be put into the Bill.
The third reason is that, just before the unfortunate action of the hon. Member for Rotherham, we were beginning to find out what the position was between the two Front Benches. It is difficult to continue our deliberations very meaningfully until we have a statement from both Front Benches on this point. The most important reason for adojurning at this point is to give the Government a chance to think up some arguments. A little sleep and a little food might give them some ideas.
For the Home Secretary to say that we were given a full answer on the Scottish point is simply untrue. Certainly, the manner of the Under-Secretary was better than that of the Home Secretary. But there was no argument at all; there was mere assertion. The Under-Secretary merely said that he would prefer to do things in a different way from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). He said that it would be impossible to write this into the Bill and it should be left open. There was no argument and we have had no answers.
For all those reasons, it seems quite plain that the right thing for the Committee to do is to end its deliberations and resume them possibly a great deal later.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I support the Motion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), at about three o'clock I sought leave to move a similar Motion, but at that time, quite rightly, the Chair did not feel in a position to accept it.
I was amazed when I heard the Home Secretary. I am sorry that he has again left the Committee. This seems to be the practice of the Front Benches on both sides. First, the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are never here. Secondly, the Government, whenever a Motion is put, either give no reply or give a reply before hearing the debate.
Immediately after the Motion was moved very ably by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), the Home Secretary got up to reply without hearing any arguments from his own side. He chastised and made jeering remarks about the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) because he tried to move the Closure. The Home Secretary was not here to know why the hon. Member did that. He did it because he wanted to show that, rightly or wrongly, if he tried to move the Closure on a Minister it would not be accepted.
In that instance he was right, but I can assure him from personal experience and knowledge that only once, during nearly 25 years that I have been here, on Government business has a Closure Motion been accepted by the Chair, and that was when I moved it. In that instance the Whips said that they wanted it to be accepted. Had the Home Secretary been here he would have appreciated why the hon. Member made that interjection.
Equally, had the Home Secretary been here he would have appreciated how discourteous, albeit unintentionally, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) was to my hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham moved the

Closure when my two other hon. Friends were being courteous to one another.
I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West slipped up when he said that the party was still going on. What he should have said was that the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham moved the Closure was the time when Government Members who had been at a party had been called back for the vote. Where my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham slipped up was that it had been prearranged that the vote would come then and so they had to return from Claridge's, or whether it was they held their party. [An HON. MEMBER: "At No. 10."] It does not matter. It was a party.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State is confirming what I am saying, namely, that they had to come back. I apologise to the Committee. I understand that they had to come back from No. 10, not from Claridge's. This discussion will not be closured because the Government have not got the support of 100 Members. It might be as well for us to move, That the Question be now put. We might be able to muster the support of 100 Members between us. Indeed, we might vote in favour of the Motion without moving the Closure.

Mr. Howie: If we were to divide and fewer than 40 Members voted we would be counted out.

Mr. Lewis: We are debating whether we should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I do now know how this would work. Perhaps my hon. Friend would have a word with the Chairman, who would no doubt advise him on whether this is a way of dealing with the matter.
I wish that the Government would listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) more often, rather than listen to the Opposition Front Bench and to some of my hon. Friends on this side. If they did they would not get into such a mess as they have now. I have in mind the three-line Whip issued in connection with the Stansted affair, when evenually my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale was


proved to be right, and I could quote a dozen occasions when the Government changed their minds because they discovered that they were wrong.
Why should we go on with this Bill at half-past five in the morning? I do not know who wants it. It was said that there was no interest in it in the House or at the party meetings. I do not know why whoever said that stopped there. I have not found any interest for it in the country. It was reported on television, or on the radio, that there were demonstrations in Westminster yesterday. In my stupidity I thought that people were demonstrating in favour of the Bill. I find it was not that at all.
A few weeks ago, I found that there were riots in Grosvenor Square and I was not sure whether it might be my trade union or Labour Party colleagues demonstrating in favour of the Parliament Bill. I was mistaken and although I understood that the Bill was urgent and necessary, the Opposition do not think so, because we have the second team here.

Sir D. Glover: A very good second team.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, and with the exception of the Under-Secretary in full and the Home Secretary, in part, there have not been many Ministers here. I do not think that they have been too interested in the Bill.
If we were to report Progress and go away, I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and say, "Let us scrap the Bill altogether because there are a hundred and one different progressive Measures which hon. Members on both sides would like to see brought in." When we had the last debate before the vote was taken on the Closure, we were discussing salaries, fees, or expenses to noble Lords. We had no answer to that. We had a leak. Every days I find there are leaks and I ask for Select Committees to look into them, but the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is the only lucky one who gets such a Committee appointed.
What happens? Here we have a leak by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) on what happened. Since he made it, my hon. Friend got into a

fix and we have not seen him since. We never had an answer. Had I been able to take part in the debate I would have liked to have asked if whether there were any need for payment or expenses for the Lords at all. Some of them are having salaries increased by 60 per cent., from £12,500 to £20,000 a year. When people talk about 4½ guineas a day on such a salary that is what they mean. It is quite a substantial sum.
Had I been able to take part in the debate, I would have developed this and argued what the 4½ guineas——

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the Motion.

Mr. Lewis: I was about to relate this to what would happen if we reported Progress and obtained leave to sit again. We could then perhaps come back later today and be more refreshed and have an opportunity on the Clause as a whole, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Enoch Powell) mentioned, and I could then, with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. W. Howie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) raise the question whether there is any need at all for payments or expenses.
If a number of Lords are to receive 50 or 60 per cent. increases in salaries we could debate it when fresh. No doubt we could go to the Library and spend——

The Chairman: As the Bill stands, the hon. Member cannot debate that at the moment.

Mr. Lewis: If we could now report Progress, and adjourn we would have time from, say, six o'clock until 2.30 p.m., to go into this and get all the facts and figures. We could show them to my hon. Friend, who says that the facts and figures were not leaked to the Press. Some hon. Members want to go home to bed or have a bath, but my hon. Friends would want to join me in the Library to look up some of these matters in preparation for the continuation of the debate. The election in Northern Ireland has been mentioned. If we reported Progress, that would enable Northern Ireland Members who have been active in that


election to be here at 2.30, since they are vitally affected.
I like the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department very much. He is one of the most charming and capable Ministers and I hope that he will soon rise to higher office. But he did not answer the question which was not put to him, because we did not have time to debate it——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has my hon. Friend overlooked the fact that Northern Ireland Members have not yet been able to study the provisions of the Act of 1707?

Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether that would be in order on this Question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Of course it is.

Mr. Lewis: I must be guided by my hon. Friend. If we reported Progress, those hon. Members could study that Act. Better still, they might prefer to discuss it with the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), who, in her charming way, could probably go into much more detail and teach them about it personally. She could probably interest those hon. Members better than my hon. Friend could, on that subject only, of course.

Mr. John Smith: This is a most important and valuable point which the hon. Member is verging towards. It is very important that these Northern Irish Members should be here, because many Northern Irishmen are Scotsmen. Our discussion, had we gone on, would have involved Northern Irish peers, whom I have always found a very superior class of person. I should be very sorry if they were excluded from any rearrangement of the Upper House as they have been excluded for so long from the present House. It would be most discourteous to them and the people of Northern Ireland to go on in their absence; we should wait until they can be here.

The Chairman: Order. To elaborate this matter much further would be out of order.

Mr. Lewis: I was about to say exactly that, Mr. Irving. I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to make my speech in his intervention. If I developed the

point he raised I have no doubt that you would call me to order. I do not want to discuss the point in depth. I mention it as another reason why it would be advantageous to hon. Members to report Progress now.
I want to deal with the City of London. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) may think that Scotland is supreme, but I have a great respect for the City of London, from whence all goodness flows. The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) is a great friend of mine. I have constituency arrangements with him. and, therefore, I must deal with his point first. If we adjourn now I can meet the hon. Member and discuss with him vital matters concerning our two constituencies——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is now going away from the Motion.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Irving. I am making a case——

The Chairman: I have indicated to the hon. Member that to pursue the line he is now pursuing would be out of order.

Mr. Lewis: I am putting forward reasons why we should now adjourn, Mr. Irving. I am putting forward as one reason the fact that if we were to report Progress and I did not have to sit in this Committee now, taking part in this debate, the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster and I could better spend our time in discussing Epping Forest, for which he is responsible, and West Ham Borough Corporation. We could much better discuss such matters than sit here. I shall not develop that point.

Sir C. Taylor: Sir C. Taylor rose——

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) and I have often travelled from the City of London to Eastbourne. I am always willing to visit the seaside if the hon. Member wishes to interject, but I hope that he will not take quite as long as his hon. Friend.

Sir C. Taylor: I only wanted to advise the hon. Gentleman that he could not meet my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster


(Mr. John Smith), after the debate and before we meet this afternoon, because he has already made a date with some of his hon. Friends in the Library.

The Chairman: Order. The purpose of the Motion is to report Progress on the Bill. Hon. Members are getting away from the Motion.

Mr. Lewis: I agree, Mr. Irving. I wish that hon. Members opposite would not sidetrack me from the issue.
If we were to agree to report Progress my hon. Friends and I could do a lot of work in a little time. I could deal both with the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster and my hon. Friend the Member for Walton at the same time and, if need be, the hon. Member for Eastbourne.

Mr. Michael Alison: On a point of order. Is it in order for a Member of the Liberal Party to read The Guardian of Wednesday, 25th February, Mr. Irving?

The Chairman: The practice of the Committee is that Members may have papers only if they relate to the contribution they hope to make in the debate.

Mr. David Steel: I was reading an article entitled "About the House", which refers to the fact that a new can opener which opens tins, leaving a smooth instead of a jagged edge, will set a new standard. I thought that this might be relevant to the debate.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether it is or is not in order, but the hon. Member may have been bringing the paper for me to provide me with ammunition to support the Motion to ably moved in a short speech by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).
The majority of hon. Members want to report Progress, including the Liberals. Indeed, I notice one hon. Member nodding on the Government Front Bench, though I use the word "nodding" not to imply that he is assenting to what I am saying. The occupants of the Opposition Front Bench have already reported Progress and have gone home, including the Leader of the Opposition. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which one?"] I refer to

the one who is paid, whether or not he deserves it.
I also note that the Home Secretary has rejoined us. For his benefit I will repeat what I said earlier. He should not have intervened so soon after, hours ago, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames moved the Motion, since he had not had the benefit of hearing the case which other hon. Members wished to put. He established that point, but I would explain that had he been a Member a little longer he would have realised that never has the Chair accepted and never does the Chair accept from a back bencher a Closure on Government orders of the day. There was one exception. Once a Closure Motion by me was accepted. I thought that I had achieved something almost miraculous, until I was told afterwards by the Whips, "We were going to move it if you had not moved it." So they let me get away with it.
The Home Secretary really must listen, because I cannot address the rest of the Committee, for if I do I shall be accused of tedious repetition I was about to say that the reason why the hon. Member for Rotherham got up to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was not that he slipped up and acted in error, but that the payroll gang had come back. I apologise to the Home Secretary, because I originally said that they had come back from Claridge's but——

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not relating his remarks to the Motion before the Committee.

Mr. Lewis: The Home Secretary spoke to the Motion, and I was dealing with a point he made, and I was going to say that one of the reasons for the problem which arose earlier was the attempt by the hon. Member for Rotherham to stifle discussion, but that the reason why he did that was that the time was fixed by the payroll gang who had come back from Claridge's Hotel. Then a junior Home Office Minister corrected me, and said that it was not Claridge's: they had come back from a party at 10, Downing Street.

Sir D. Glover: A free do?

Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether it was a free do. I do not know whether it would be in order for me to discuss that, or whether, Mr. Irving, you would give me permission to develop it? I would like to have guidance whether, on this Motion, I could deal with the point which the hon. Gentleman has made. Perhaps you would advise me. I am quite willing to debate this issue. I have not been corrected, so I assume that I may.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must make no such assumption. I am listening very carefully. I shall tell the hon. Member if and when he is out of order.

Mr. Lewis: We will see how far I get.
The hon. Member wanted to know whether the party was a paid one or not. I think it likely that it was an unpaid one, but, not having been to one myself, I cannot vouch for this.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now out of order.

Mr. Lewis: I thought that that probably would be your point, Mr. Irving, but most of the points which hon. Members opposite make are out of order. I have to hear them first; when I discover they are out of order I have to bow to the Ruling of the Chair.

Mr. John Smith: Mr. John Smith rose——

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Mr. Biggs-Davison rose——

Mr. Lewis: I am giving way to the City of London.

Mr. John Smith: I am not quite clear—how many times did these people come back from Claridge's?

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue that matter.

Mr. Lewis: I cannot pursue that, but probably if the hon. Gentleman looks at HANSARD——

The Chairman: Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will do just that.

Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman likes to look at HANSARD tomorrow, if we adjourn early enough, he will probably find the answer there.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not it extraordinary that we have representatives of

the Government coming here repeatedly from parties, described by some as being at Claridge's and by others as being at No. 10——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not relating his remarks to the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: With the greatest respect, that is precisely what I aim to do. If this is the case, those members of the Government must be perhaps not in the best form to deal with this very serious constitutional Measure. Therefore, it is best that they accept the Motion.

Mr. Lewis: I shall not be tempted into going out of order to deal with that point.
It would be as well if the Motion were accepted now, because then there would be no question of parties and returning from parties. We would come back at 2.30, and after an hour of Questions would get back on to the Bill. I assume that there would then be no question of whether hon. Members are fit to continue consideration of it.
I think that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was trying to get me to give way.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster did not indicate that he wished the hon. Gentleman to give way. There are other hon. Members wishing to speak on the Motion.

Mr. Lewis: We have reached the stage where even I am beginning to see things which are not there. I am usually all right up to about 5.30 a.m., but after 5.45 I begin to see things. We should adjourn now and go away and refresh ourselves, and perhaps have a bath and a few hours' sleep before our next sitting.

Mr. Crouch: Is the hon. Gentleman coming to the end of his speech for the second time? I think that he has left out the essential point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster about the Irish peers. When the hon. Gentleman made his speech the first time, before the Home Secretary returned, he made references that he has not yet covered.

Mr. Lewis: For the benefit now of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary,


what I said was that we could not debate this question because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, in his usual charming, courteous and helpful way, had answered it, but he did so too soon. He said that he would now deal with the debate, but he had not heard any of it—only three Members from Scotland. I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and the others, whoever they were, but some of the parts of England should have been debated, together with the point about Northern Ireland. What a wonderful opportunity we had to discuss the question of Northern Irish peers.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not relating his remarks to the Motion.

6.0 a.m.

Mr. Lewis: If we were to report Progress we could give Northern Irish Members who have been otherwise engaged in electoral activities the opportunity to be here at 2.30. No one expects them to be here at this hour. We could give them the opportunity to be here——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made this point before.

Mr. Lewis: If we reported Progress we could get away. I could go to my constituency where I have an engagement at 9 a.m. to lecture at a local college. I have irrefutable proof of that engagement. It would give me a chance to prepare my lecture.

Sir D. Glover: Perhaps I can help. If the hon. Gentleman will give me the name of the school, perhaps I can make a speech for him since he does not look like finishing his speech to the House in time.

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham. North will relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: To the Bill? Surely it is a Motion to report Progress.

The Chairman: The Motion is to report Progress on the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: This shows how the hour affects us all. I have made mistakes. Now you, Mr. Irving, mention the Bill rather than the Motion to report Progress.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is questioning the statement of the Chair. The Motion to report Progress is to report Progress on the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Irving. I was going to say that I could not discuss the Bill or its Clauses because we have to relate our speeches to the Motion to report progress.
I want the debate adjourned so that I can get to the college and deliver my lecture. God forbid that I should wish the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) upon my constituents. There are worse things, I know not what.

Mr. Clegg: As the Secretary of State for Wales has arrived, would the hon. Gentleman like to tell him of the important regional aspects involved?

Mr. Lewis: I would not attempt it, because the Under-Secretary is a Welshman and he dealt adequately with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. The Welsh and the Scots have been cornering the market in the debate. I mean no reflection upon the Chair, but there has been my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, that adopted Welshman, and English Members have not been called by the Chair.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not be reflecting on the Chair, but neither are his remarks reflecting upon the Motion.

Mr. Lewis: If we had adjourned earlier, we should not have had the Under-Secretary replying to a debate which he did not hear, and which did not really take place because no English Members took part. If we adjourn now those Members will be able to return, refreshed, later today to take part.

[Sir BARNETT JANNER in the Chair]

Mr. John Smith: The Home Secretary's attitude towards this Motion has been rather cynical, very much in line with the Government's attitude to the Bill. They have refused to define the Bill more closely, and have even withdrawn Amendments in the hope of avoiding Report stage. One gets the feeling that they would sooner have the wrong


Bill, an undiscussed Bill, than Report stage. We are asked to continue our discussions at this late hour. What should we think of a solicitor who drew up a will at 6 a.m. or of a bank manager if he made a decision about our overdraft at this time? What would we think of a surgeon if he "surged"—if he operated—until 6 a.m.? We should change them. What should we think of a firm which was working as we returned home at 6 a.m. from a party at Claridges?

Mr. Lewis: I apologise because I inadvertently said Claridge's. I corrected this and said that it was No. 10 Downing Street.

Mr. Smith: However that may be, my point is that we are being asked to conduct our business on an important matter at an hour when we would not expect a person to make any decision, however trivial, about our own private affairs. Indeed, we should greatly resent it. Yet here we are dealing with the representation in Parliament of several nations and regions. To proceed in this way is not only disgraceful; it is dangerous for Parliament. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was right to point out that this was what put Parliamentary democracy in danger. I regard that as a serious matter, far transcending the stuff about Claridge's which we have had from the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). One knows how angry the fringe groups become if one glosses over their affairs. It is most unwise, it is disrespectful to them, and it will bring the House into disrepute if we carry on as the Government wish us to do.
What is the hurry to reform the House of Lords? We all want to reform the House of Lords, but we want to get it right. We are helping the Government by suggesting that we should adjourn at this point. They do not want to go on with the Bill in this form. They would be pleased to find a way of getting off the hook, putting the Bill right, and re-introducing it later in a more acceptable form.
There is a great deal more to be said. There is a great deal more to be said about Scotland, for example, and the Scottish question is only one of several raised by the Amendments. The affairs of the other nations and regions cannot

be dismissed in a brief debate at a late hour of the night. I support the Motion.

Mr. Ridley: I hate to disagree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), but I believe that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) moved the Closure on purpose in the middle of the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman ought not to say that. There is a custom of the House that we accept what an hon. Member says if he is challenged. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said earlier that he did not do it intentionally. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] He is not here at the moment, but earlier on he nodded in response to a question.

Mr. Ridley: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say anything, and neither did any of my hon. Friends. I was about to adduce in support of what I say that, if the hon. Gentleman had realised that he had made a mistake, he could have put the matter right by allowing the Motion to be negatived and not taking it to a Division.
6.15 a.m.
I pondered on the motive for this, because I believed that the hon. Member for Rotherham wanted to stop the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne in midstream. I am certain that that was because my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) had lifted the corner of the cover of some part of this bargain. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ashton-under Lyne for the clever way in which he found out that there was this bargain. It was clearly part of the bargain that my right hon. Friends insisted that there should be payment for members of the House of Lords.
The fact that this part of the bargain has been abandoned, that it has gone out of the window, makes it impossible to secure that the members of another place will support the Bill when it gets there, for the compliance of another place and the all-party support upon which the Bill is based depend entirely upon getting it through another place. Now that it is known not only that there is to be no pay, but that the right hon. Member for Barnet has admitted that he has not even protested at the breaking of the bargain


and is prepared to let the bargain be destroyed, to let the breach of faith pass, means that there will be a great revolt among noble Lords.
I thing that my right hon. Friends are absent from the Chamber tonight because they have gone to canvass Conservative peers to make sure that they will still behave and, if the Committee is not now adjourned, it will be impossible to secure the compliance of noble Lords in voting for the Bill when it goes to another place. Noble Lords are scattered all over the countryside; some are in Scotland, some in Northern Ireland, and others are in the regions, and they all have to be consulted about whether they are still prepared to support the Bill. Their heirs will also obviously have to be consulted, because no noble Lord will make up his mind about whether to support the Bill unless his heir agrees that it be worth while to do so.
All these considerations are completely new—the fact that there is not to be any pay and the fact that the Opposition Front Bench has connived at the destruction of the pay element—and they make the picture completely different and will alter the attitudes of many noble Lords to the Bill.
Two of the conditions on which the Conservative Front Bench insisted have become clear—one is that hereditary peers who were not nominated voting peers should maintain the right to sit in the House of Lords, and the other is that everybody would be paid. These were two of the terms on which Conservative peers agreed to the reform. This was the Opposition's side of the bargain. All that has now been blown sky high and brought into the open, and the element of risk which noble Lords will feel will be considerably heightened by the disclosures this evening.
It therefore becomes essential to report Progress so that the views of noble Lords may be consulted and so that it can be ascertained whether they are still prepared to support the Bill. Their whole motive for supporting the Bill seems to have been shot from under their feet and they will therefore not be so keen to continue to support the Bill. This seems to be a compelling reason to add to all the other reasons why we should not proceed further with the Bill.
I hope that the soundings which my right hon. Friends make with the peers will convince them that there is no future for the Bill in another place. That will be another reason why the Government should not proceed with the Bill. The experience of tonight, when the Committee has been united in resisting the Bill, seems to be sufficient evidence, if sufficient evidence be needed, that politically it is not on to push on with the Bill any more tonight.
Reasons have been adduced to report Progress and sit again from the witty, to the eloquent, to the telling and to the utterly convincing, which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has repeated in case the Home Secretary had not heard them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I was rather hurried when I made my little interjection. There was another point which I was going to put——

[Sir BARNETT JANNER in the Chair]

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member cannot make another speech, An interjection should be brief.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Sir Barnett. I was going to make a very short point—to tell the hon. Member that a point which I would have made, had he not hurried me, was that I understand the Government are now talking about a guillotine on this Bill. If that was to happen, this is another good reason why we should adjourn to discuss that matter.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Sir Barnett. I understood you to indicate to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that he was not allowed to make a second speech. May I point out that we are on a Committee stage, and respectfully suggest that hon. Members can make second speeches?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is not allowed to make a second speech in an intervention, and he was intervening at the time. That is an entirely different matter.

Mr. Ridley: I would not like to follow your intervention into the intervention by the hon. Member for West Ham, North into my speech, but I would like to deal with his suggestion that there could conceivably be a guillotine on this Bill. That


idea is utterly unrealistic and fantastic. It is totally unacceptable and unprecedented that there should ever be a Motion of that sort on an important constitutional Bill like this, and I beg the hon. Gentleman not to accept it as being at all possible. I would defend even this Home Secretary to the utmost from any suggestion that this could be in the Government's mind. I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends would acquit him of any such motives, because I am certain that the whole House would join in voting down a Motion of that sort because of its utter constitutional impropriety.

Mr. Sheldon: There are a number of occasions when we do from time to time sit during the night and discuss quite important matters of legislation. What has happened tonight is, in its outward form at any rate, nothing that comes as a surprise to us. But when we are considering the particular legislation that we have been debating, we see two factors that are a little different.
The first concerns the importance of the Measure. When we are discussing matters whereby we are in effect drawing up an important part of the Constitution of this country, it needs to be treated in a rather different way even from that of our most important Bills, such as the Finance Bill. When we are discussing how we should organise one of the two constituent parts of our Parliament, it is very important that we not only do this with some care, but that we do it at a time of day when perhaps or energies are rather better directed to the work in hand.
The second point which is rather special about this reform of Parliament is the lack of urgency about it. Nobody has really said that after staying as it has been virtually unchanged since 1911, because the 1948 changes were very minor, suddenly within a matter of months the position became so urgent that we had to sit day and night in order to bring about the change presented to us. The least we could do would be to spend more time on important legislation such as this than on legislation of a more temporary character. Although we might be prepared to abuse our working hours to carry out certain essential matters, the case for doing so on this

Bill is much less, and 6.25 a.m. would be a suitable time to discontinue our discussions so that we may come back afresh.
We saw earlier the disgruntlement of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) at the bargain, which is now turning very sour. It is obvious, too, that the interpretation of the bargain by one Front Bench is not the same as that of the other. Since there is a difference of view on the compact reached, there will be a need for consultations between the Front Benches and the other place and between our two Front Benches and some time will be needed to resolve this matter, if it is possible to do so.
Earlier we experienced the heated tempers which we all deprecate but can very well understand when the Front Benches co-operate to thwart the backbenchers of both sides. The antipathy between the Front Benches and the backbenchers shown during the debate is unique in my experience. For backbenchers to be united against the Front Benches is not good for the House of Commons. I would prefer to have seen both Front Benches responding more readily to the prompting of the backbenchers, who perhaps understand the political matters which seem not to have occupied the foremost place in the minds of Front Benchers.
We may have taken a fair amount of time in discussing the Bill, but it must be remembered that small Amendments to a big Bill can be of greater consequence than big Amendments to a small Bill. We should, therefore, make no apology for discussing the effects of the Bill, which are very large and to some extent incalculable. We must examine the Bill from every conceivable angle, since the effect of even the smallest changes is likely to be very large.
The other reason why we should make no apology is that in the constitution of virtually every democratic country there are safeguards against the rapid and easy change of that constitution, whether by the large majorities which are required, such as the two-thirds majority in Germany and the three-quarters of all the States in the United States, or by entrenched clauses.
We do not have this kind of safeguard, so we are open to change our constitution very easily. What we are trying to


do, very properly, is to provide, by this close examination of the Bill, some small part of the very important delay that occurs in most constitutions. However much we try by these processes, it is still far less than most democratic countries possess for preventing change precipitously in their constitutions.

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend mentioned different countries. I think he should use the analogy of the nominated body of the party bosses of the Kremlin, because this is done on a patronage basis. They are nominated according to service to the party boss. This seems to be what will happen here.

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity of developing his point later in the debate, which will obviously continue for a little while.
The next reason why we should pause is to give the Opposition Front Bench a chance to regroup its forces to appear here in the place where they should be. Although the speeches from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite may not have been noticeable in their content and quantity, their presence up to now has been more or less intermittent. It is sad to see the Opposition Front Bench completely deserted, as it is now.
It is important that the views of the Committee be made known to the Front Benches on both sides so that, if there is any change in the compact, it will come about as a result of the views and pressure of hon. Members on the back benches on both sides.
I do not believe that it is possible to decide the composition of a second Chamber without very thorough investigation. I do not think that the reflection that we ought to be giving to the Bill can be given at this time in the morning. I feel that we have reached a stage in our proceedings when we might usefully adjourn, to come back later and review how we are to bring about constitutional changes. We all know the limitations on investigating many of our important Bills by means of Standing Committees—even Committees of the whole House. When we come to crucial constitutional changes the inadequacies of some of our processes become even more apparent. If there are inadequacies, as I believe, in the way that we examine these matters,

we should not compound them by meeting at this time in the morning.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I have resumed my normal humble place below the Gangway in order that I may have full freedom of debate. But I should be happy to station myself again above the Gangway with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) if there was a possibility that we might enter into a package deal with right hon. Gentlemen opposite to bring these proceedings to an end as soon as may be and of persuading them that they should listen to what has been said by their hon. Friends and do away with what was so rightly described in an article in The Times yesterday as "the Bill nobody wants".

Sir D. Glover: My hon. Friend says that he would be only too happy to accompany me back on to the Front Bench. If we did that, would we get squatters' rights and be able to commit our party?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I should not like to enter into a discussion about that because I think that I might be called to order for transgressing beyond the bounds of this Motion if I were to do so.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Does my hon. Friend think that it would be an excellent idea to adjourn so that we could raise the matter in the 1922 Committee?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was very anxious to have a party meeting.

Mr. Orme: I warned my hon. Friend about that.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I do not know whether it is possible or feasible to have a meeting of the Conservative members of the Committee.
I think that we have first to dispose of the Motion. I hope that the Home Secretary will now agree to accept it. I do not see why the Government should not do so. I do not see what they are gaining by not accepting it. Do Members on the Treasury Bench like to sit there? It is not as though they are playing an intelligent part in the proceedings. It is not as though they are studying the arguments which are being put before them. They are sitting there with the most uninterested look on their faces.
I know that they are as fresh as paint. That is the phrase the Home Secretary used after we had been engaged in debate for several hours. He descended upon us, very jolly—not as he was the other day, when he was a bit short with some of us—very nice, and full of enthusiasm to carry on the discussion. That was not so of all his right hon. Friends. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who was sitting on the Treasury Bench is all right. I am seeking to persuade the fresh-as-paint Home Secretary to accept the Motion.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman mentioned someone on the Treasury Bench. What about the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)? He is anxious to go home.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is not yet on the Treasury Bench. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right to want to go home. I think that he has played a notable part in our debates. We have all enjoyed his speeches, and I think that he is entitled to his rest. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to prepare himself for future debates, if such occur.
I think that the Home Secretary ought to take pity on his colleagues, because they are not standing up to this in the way that he is. They are not finding it so nice. Everyone admires the Under-Secretary of State, but the most extraordinary thing happened earlier on. The hon. Gentleman said that he could not distinguish between a white fish and the Prime Minister—a most extraordinary thing for a junior member of the Administration to say. The hon. Gentleman then replied to a debate that had not taken place. He answered all the arguments that had not been adduced. The debate centred upon the question of the Act of Union and the right of Scottish peers to remain in a reformed House of Lords, and then an English Member rose to reply on the whole question of British standard regions. I am not quite clear what they are. Other parts of Great Britain were not touched on, yet the hon. Gentleman plunged into the debate to answer interventions, speeches, and contributions which had not been made.
That seemed strange to me. It seemed to me that some hours ago the hon.

Member was suffering from extreme fatigue. Now I think the fatigue must be intolerable and the burden heavy on him. It does not seem right that the Administration which is trying to govern the country should remain sitting there. It is not in the interests of the Administration, nor in the interest of members of the Committee. I do not believe that if members of the Government were called on to put their hands on their hearts and say whether they wanted to continue here rather than go away, that they would say they would rather stay here.
I notice that our counsels have been reinforced by a Law Officer.

Sir D. Glover: Two of them.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes. That is a bonanza. We have the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General as well, yet when we were arguing about the constitutional complexities of the Act of Union and how it would be altered by this reform of another place, there was no Law Officer, certainly not a Scottish Law Officer. Now they are here, and this shows the extraordinary confusion in which this Bill is being conducted. It reinforces my argument that Her Majesty's Ministers, who have been taking some part, should be allowed to go away, pull themselves together and do away with this beastly Bill.

Mr. Iremonger: It must now have become clear to the Government that this Committee will not tolerate being pushed around in the way the Government have been trying to push us around during the night. It is time they accepted this Motion with good grace and reported progress and asked leave to sit again. Obviously no further progress will be made in this sitting day, and less and less progress will be made in successive sitting days. It would be much better if they were to take advantage of this opportunity.
The Deputy Chief Whip made the kind of blunder in handling the House which no Government lightly survives on any Measure, and on a Measure of this kind to have done that sort of thing in that way will not, I hope, be forgotten or forgiven by the House. This Measure is


long and difficult and puts great responsibility on the House in any circumstances. It is a bad augury for the Government to have treated the Committee in the way it has.
The Home Secretary has everything to gain and nothing to lose by accepting the Motion now. It has been subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny, quite properly in the last two and threequarter hours and I have been giving serious thought to its precise terms. I am bound to question it. We are being asked to report Progress. What progress are we going to report? In considering the Motion we should ask ourselves what progress has been made with the Bill so far.

The Motion adds "and ask leave to sit again". The Committee should recall that in moving this the right hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. J. Boyd-Carpenter) said that it was the part of the Motion which least engaged his loyalties. That was the bit, I thought, which was least attractive and could be most easily left out. I should have preferred it if he had not pressed that part and the Government had said that we should never sit again on this Bill, that we had made already too much progress with a bad Bill, and that they would tell my right hon. Friends that they were sorry to let them down but the time had come to wash the: whole thing out. Then they could gel on with more constructive and useful Measures——

Sir D. Glover: They have none.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Iremonger: One very useful Measure which they could introduce would be a Proclamation dissolving Parliament and enabling the country to decide exactly what fundamental reforms it wanted in a more basic and crude way.
If we are to consider what progress we have made, we must bring our minds urgently to bear on Clause 1. I am sorry that it has been passed, but, in reporting progress on it, we should have to say, what would be the sorry truth, that, in all the matters considered so far, not one Amendment has been accepted by the Government or even acceded to by our own Front Bench. Therefore, all that we have done now on Clause 1 is abandon that admirable hereditary principle,

to which any legislature should be and remain attached and for which it should be thankful. It is a far better way of achieving a random selection of obstructive legislators than——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is now getting on to the detailed merits of the Bill; he must address himself to the Motion, which is, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Iremonger: Subject to your correction, Mr. Irving, I was casting around in my mind as to what progress we should be reporting. If we were to report conscientiously, we should report Clause by Clause and failed Amendment by failed Amendment. We should have to say to the House what we tried and failed to do on Clause 1. What will the House say when we report that sorry state of affairs?

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury) rose——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going into too much detail on this. He may discuss only that part of the Bill which was considered in this sitting.

Mr. Iremonger: I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr. Irving, and the masterly synchronisation which you and I managed to achieve. Our physical athleticism does us even great credit than our intellectual athleticism. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not hesitate to make any interventions which they see fit, but it would be unwise to rise and tempt me to sit, because if I resume my seat for one second——

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Rotherham is there.

Mr. Iremonger: —we know what will happen.
While on the subject of reporting Progress, you have rightly told me, Mr. Irving, that the progress which we shall report is the progress which we have made in this sitting. The first element in the progress that we have made is a sorry insight into the Parliamentary ethics of the Government Deputy Chief Whip. If ever anything were to be reported to the House—and I hope it will be, in the sense of a substantive Motion—it should be under the time-honoured heading of


"Conduct of the hon. Member for Rotherham". I hope that the report made is to the effect that he breached what, if it had not been on an intervention, would have been a cardinal rule of the House, in interrupting one of his hon. Friends—it would have been still worse if he had interrupted one of my hon. Friends—in full flow, under a cruel subterfuge, when the hon. Member was giving way to one of his hon. Friends, to move the Closure—which in any circumstances would have been an unpardonable thing to have done on a Measure of this nature in a debate on an Amendment to a Clause of the nature that the Clause and the Amendment have. The debate had hardly begun.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was being as brief and succinct as he possibly could have been. We were dealing with a subject which could hardly have begun to be considered by the House; I had been in my seat from just after seven o'clock until whatever hour it was that this dastardly deed was done—hours and hours and hours without so much as a sausage or a cup of tea to refresh me.
I had quite a lot to say which would have added to the progress we could have reported as having been made. That is progress which we now have to report we have not made. It would have been a pretty wretched report to make to the House. None the less, I feel that we ought to make that report now. We shall have to say that we tried to make progress in subjecting Clause 2 to the scrutiny it deserved in respect of the Amendments about the payment of these—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) called them—lavatory attendants that we are proposing to establish in another place. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West used that phrase. I would have thought that its vulgarity would convince my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that it did not come from my mouth. That was the epithet proposed for these peers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was referring to the Liberal Member.

Mr. Iremonger: In that case we should make it clear to the House. I apologise

to any other nominees to whom it does not apply.

The question of paying these peers did arise, and there was a lot to be said on the subject. Only the fringes of the problem had been touched upon—and then only by Privy Councillors. Hardly any of the rabble on this side of the Committee had had their say.

Sir D. Glover: I beg your pardon!

Mr. Iremonger: Only the Privy Councillors had been able to examine this question. Then, having been cut short in our prime in our debate on that matter, we tried to make some progress in amending the Clause in respect of Scottish representation, which was the subject of the Amendment we were considering. With that Amendment were grouped many others. The question of Scottish representation was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who moved the Amendment most ably, and opened up a huge field of debate.
We shall have to report that, for example, on Amendment 187 we made no progress. That proposal introduced the question of standard regions. I am not sure what standard regions are, but that Amendment must have been important or——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate an Amendment on this Motion.

Mr. Iremonger: We were making progress on that Amendment when——

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that on this Motion he cannot discuss the subject of an Amendment in detail.

Mr. Iremonger: As we must consider what progress we have made—if we have made any or if we could have made more—hon. Members must approach the Motion with an open mind. The Home Secretary is on my side because he said, in a light-hearted way, that he hoped to get Clauses 3 and 4 as well tonight.

Earl of Dalkeith: Earl of Dalkeith rose——

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Do not give way. The Government Whip is waiting.

Sir D. Glover: I do not think so. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) is probably bluffing. I do not


believe that he can round up 100 supporters.

Mr. Iremonger: I am normally willing to give way, but I am in a procedural dilemma.

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman on this procedural point. If the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) cared to move the Motion which the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has in mind, he could do so whether or not the hon. Gentleman was on his feet.

Sir D. Glover: Do not encourage the Government Whip.

Mr. Iremonger: I suppose that nothing will stop the hon. Member for Rotherham from curtailing the discussion still further if he wants to do so.

Sir D. Glover: I am not so sure. I think he is bluffing.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Iremonger: My right hon. Friend submitted that we should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The Home Secretary said, "Progress? Call this progress? Look at what we ought to do. That would be progress." Therefore, the House ought to consider what the Home Secretary is asking of us. Perhaps we ought to accede to his argument that we should go on to Clause 3 and to the Amendments to it.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has addressed these remarks to the Committee already.

Mr. Iremonger: I was hoping that the Home Secretary would take the opportunity which I was giving him of rising and going to that Box and saying that;he had been persuaded by his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), by my right hon. Friend, and by other Members, to accept the Motion before the Committee and to say that he thought that we had made as much progress as we would be likely to make tonight, and that we would sit again. What he ought also to say is, that we should not sit again on tomorrow's sitting day, that he would consider withdrawing the Bill, after what has happened tonight. That is why I said I thought my right hon. Friend was so

very right in not pressing that part of the Motion which speaks of sitting again.
I think the Home Secretary must be having very serious qualms of conscience when he considers what he has done. He has entered into an unsuccessful conspiracy with our Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]. Well, at least they have enough sense of shame to be absent from the Chamber. They are not sitting here blatantly and defiantly like hon. Members opposite. Were my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), now on the Front Bench, to enter into a conspiracy, at least it would be a successful one. The trouble is that this was entered into in a hole and corner way. It was entered into by members of the Committee who have hardly been on the back benches half a dog watch, and who were primarily by temperament and experience Government men, who introduced a Government Measure to turn the Upper House into the same——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. Whether it is true or not, is it in order to say that Ministers and members on the Government Front Bench are entering into conspiracies? Is it in order to accuse Ministers of entering into conspiracies?

The Chairman: There is nothing un-parliamentary in that.

Mr. Iremonger: I was criticising them for having been unsuccessful, and I was criticising my own Front Bench for having entered into a conspiracy which, when it came to the test, was not accepted by the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and not accepted by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Opposition leaders have run away.

Mr. Iremonger: They have been replaced by other hon. Members of this party.
I really cannot see how the Home Secretary can possibly anticipate that we shall make any more progress in the whole of this forenoon, unless he is proposing to move the Closure before spokesmen for Northern Ireland, as an hon. Member mentioned, spokesmen for


Wales, for North-East England, North-West England, Cornwall, South-East England, East Anglia, the West Midlands, to say nothing of Ilford and other areas of London and England, have had a say; to move the Closure as he did on the last Amendment we considered and then hurry us on to Clause 3, dealing with senility and other matters; to move the Closure on that after a mere token debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part.
This Motion is the one Motion that we have debated during these long hours that should be quite irresistible to anyone with any sense of constitutional responsibility. This is no light matter. I hope the Home Secretary realises that sense of deep outrage he has inspired on both sides of the Committee tonight. Only from one quarter has there been total silence. We know that second only to the Socialist Party the Liberal Party is historically the great wrecker of the constitution. This is a Socialist Measure to impose a Socialist régime on the country.
I do not want to disturb the harmony between the back benches on both sides, but the Government Front Bench has entered upon a course that will rob Parliament of its proper constitutional prerogative of checking the Executive, and will substitute for a proper Parliament one that is merely composed of nominated place men put in by each successive Prime Minister, arithmetically arranged so as always to give a Government majority.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into much too much detail now.

Mr. Iremonger: I know the Committee is anxious to come to a conclusion on the matter. I have been in some doubt as to whether we had enough progress to report, and whether we should ask to sit again. But as the Motion does not give us the option of recording a vote for the proposition that we should not sit again, all I can do is to say to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are looking extremely cynical and unresponsive——
I am glad to see that our forces have been replenished by the Chief Whip of the third party to the agreement between

the parties. I do not think that we can hope for very much help from the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party. I think that he is in it up to the neck. I do not think that he will try to stop the Bill going through. After all, as has been pointed out, the only patronage he will ever have is to nominate people for the Prime Minister to nominate to the House of Lords—and a very ripe picking it will be. I can hardly see him wanting to hold up the progress of the Bill.

Mr. Lubbock: I have never nominated anybody for membership of the Upper House.

Mr. Iremonger: And until the Bill was introduced it never looked as though the hon. Gentleman would have a chance to do so.

Mr. Albert Murray: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has been consistently out of order. The Chair has called him to order at least 10 times; I have counted them. It is about time he was asked to resume his seat.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will have to leave matters of order to the Chair.

Mr. Iremonger: There are no hands in which I would sooner leave matters of order, Mr. Irving, and I hope you have not been unduly generous. You have been extremely fair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am distressed to think that the impression may have been created that the points I have made have been out of order. In order to establish the soundness of the Chair's judgment, it would be as well if I rehearsed point by point the points I have made.

The Chairman: Order. It would be better if hon. Members on both sides would refrain from commenting on the actions of the Chair.

Mr. Iremonger: I am about to resume my seat, having, I hope not too unkindly, pointed out to the Home Secretary what he has done. I make one final plea which I am sure hon. Members opposite will think justified. This is something quite unprecedented in my experience. Never during the last 25 years have we had a Bill of such constitutional importance. The only Measure which can


compare with it is the Life Peerages Act, which many of us have come to regret because it may well have been that which led to this. For the right hon. Gentleman to want to hustle the Committee is unpardonable; for the Government Whips to be on at all is an outrage.

Sir D. Glover: I do not think they are on. That is the trouble.

Mr. Iremonger: For a Government Whip to move the Closure would be an offence to the Committee. The only thing to be said for the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) is that he might not get the Closure if he moved it. Therefore, we shall have to be generous to him and say that he has had a change of heart, is a reformed character and will not take advantage to move the Closure

of this debate because I need a little more convincing. I hope others will catch your eye, Mr. Irving, and be able to give further and fuller consideration to the question of whether we have made enough progress to be reported to the House; whether it would be creditable to report it; and whether, if we reported it, we should ask leave to sit again on this Bill. I believe that to do that would be a betrayal of our responsibilities.

7.15 a.m.

Mr. O'Malley: Mr. O'Malley rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 102, Noes 44.

Division No. 91.]
AYES
[7.10 a m.


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, yardley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Archer, Peter
Fernyhough, E.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Moyle, Roland


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fowler, Gerry
Murray, Albert


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Ogden, Eric


Binns, John
Freeson, Reginald
O'Malley, Brian


Bishop, E. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Oram, Albert E.


Blackburn, F.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oswald, Thomas


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamling, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Portland, Norman


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Rees, Merlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Howie, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoy, James
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Coe, Denis
Huckfield, Leslie
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rowlands, E.


Concannon, J. D.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretfortl)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Dewar, Donald
Lubbock, Eric
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McBride, Neil
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th& C'b'e)
Mackie, John
Varley, Eric G.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, John
Marks, Kenneth
White Mrs. Eirene


English, Michael
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ennals, David
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ensor, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hastings, Stephen
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Biffen, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Booth, Albert
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Sheldon, Robert


Clegg, Walter
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
MacArthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Wright, Esmond


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Neave, Airey
Wylie, N. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Nott, John
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Orme, Stanley



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Goodhart, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Victor Goodhew.

Question put accordingly, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again: —

7.30 a.m.

Original Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Powell: It was most unfortunate, and, indeed, ill-judged, that the Under-Secretary for the Home Department should have intervened at so comparatively early a stage in our consideration of this group of six Amendments.
To hear the earlier part of the debate, a stranger might have assumed that they were concerned exclusively with Scotland. A good deal of the discussion

The Committee divided: Ayes 46, Noes 99.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[7.22 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hastings, Stephen
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bitten, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Booth, Albert
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Sheldon, Robert


Clegg, Walter
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


English, Michael
Lubbock, Eric
Ward, Dame Irene


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
MacArthur, Ian
Wright, Esmond


Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Wylie, N. R.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Nott, John



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Gtover, Sir Douglas
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Goodhart, Phlilp
Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Murray, Albert


Archer, Peter
Fowler, Gerry
Ogden, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
O'Malley, Brian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
Oram, Albert E.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Orbach, Maurice


Binns, John
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Boyden, James
Hannan, William
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)
Rees, Merlyn


Buchan, Norman
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howie, W.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hoy, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Rowlands, E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dalyell, Tam
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Taverne, Dick

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McBride, Neil
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dell, Edmund
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Mackie, John
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Marks, Kenneth
White, Mrs. Eirene


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ellis, John
Millan, Bruce



Ennals, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ensor, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)



Fernyhough, E.
Moyle, Roland

turned upon the Act of Union of 1707, but I think that it appeared that the Act of Union was, in fact, not strictly relevant even to the Scottish Amendments, in that Parliament had shown repeatedly that it was not bound by the exact terms—though it might well be obliged morally to have regard to the spirit—of the provisions of the Act of Union.

I thought that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was guilty of an inaccuracy when he said that in this respect the


Scottish Members of another place were in a unique position in that their position was, at any rate originally, sought to be safeguarded by an agreement on which the union of the kingdoms was founded. He had overlooked that a similar union took place in 1800 between Ireland and Great Britain, with a similar provision for the representation of Irish peers in another place, and it was a matter of doubtful legality, on which lawyers and historians will long dispute, when the election, in that case for life, of Irish peers was discontinued by a sidewind after Home Rule was realised in Southern Ireland.

In fact, this group of Amendments covers not one but three largely separate issues. The first is whether Scottish peers should have the right to vote upon matters of special concern to Scotland, though not in other respects—the question, in short, whether we are right in drawing an absolute distinction between voting and non-voting peers, or whether certain non-voting peers should have voting rights on matters which specially concern them.

Then the second Amendment, to which I think the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) referred, was directed to a specific, guaranteed minimum representation of Scotland in the composition of the new nominated Chamber.

Thirdly, there is an Amendment, which has hardly received any attention so far, for the representation—again, by a specific minimum membership—of what are called the standard regions of England and Wales.

These are the three, and to a large extent separate, matters which we are considering together in this group of Amendments, and once again the Committee finds itself, as so often, endeavouring to formulate in definite and intelligible terms an aspiration or a hint sketched out in the Preamble to the Bill.

It is paragraph (b) of that Preamble:
the inclusion in that House,"—

I do not think that these Amendments are directly concerned with inclusion in the House—
… and in the said body of voting members …"—

that is where the Amendments seek to bite—
'… of suitable numbers of peers with knowledge of and experience in matters of special

concern to the various countries, nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

This is one of the many occasions on which the Committee has been trying to give form, precision and substance to a part of the Preamble and found itself once again baffled. We always find ourselves embracing a cloud, like the Greek mythical hero Ixion, when we try to give precision and definiteness to what is set out in the Preamble. All we succeed in doing at the end of the debates is once again to expose the futility of the whole operation upon which the House has been engaged in this piece of legislation.

One might reflect on what ungrateful people we British are. We accept the gifts which Providence, through a long history, has showered upon us, yet remain as if unconscious of their very existence, and attempt to dispense with them. That is what we are doing here.

Representation of Scotland; representation of the various regions and parts of England and Wales. Why? We have it already, in profusion. We have it already, with a flexibility which does not require any of this artificial distinction between voting peers and non-voting peers, or the question of when non-voting peers should for the nonce be voting peers. We have this very representation amongst that 1,062 Members of the existing House of Lords.

There is hardly a local or national interest throughout the United Kingdom where there are not already numerous members of the Upper House who are available, willing and able to speak, and who are even allowed to vote, should there be a vote on matters where they are specially qualified or specially concerned.

I have done a certain amount of partial research to illustrate the extent of the regional representation in the existing House of Lords, representation which we are sweeping away. I took a number of Midland counties, being myself a Midlander and representing a Midland city, to see how far the present secular membership of the Upper House—I took no account of the Lords spiritual, although they in a sense also can represent areas of England and Wales—represented the various parts of England and Wales.

My figures are minimum figures, since I was relying upon the addresses given as places of residence of peers in Dod's Parliamentary Companion, so that in almost every case I am bound to have under-estimated the number of peers who could reasonably be claimed to have a representative character in relation to one area or another. As I say, I took a number of Midland counties, and the score runs as follows: Gloucestershire, 20; Oxfordshire, 19; Buckinghamshire, 15; Warwickshire, 6; Worcestershire, 6; Herefordshire, 5; Cheshire, 4; Shropshire, 7; Derbyshire, 5; Staffordshire, 5.

These are counties, not large regions. We would need to add these together to form a region such as we have got into the habit of calling Mercia, for example. These are counties—relatively small parts of England and Wales—represented in profusion by noble Lords in the existing House. This is only possible because, with the present constitution of the Upper House, it is reasonable and rational for many of these noble Lords only to take part very occasionally when the special interests of the areas of which they have personal knowledge are involved.

I now turn from the picture of what we are ungrateful for having to look, so far as it is visible, at what is in the Bill. We do not know how many Members the second Chamber will have, but we are told that it will start with between 200 and 250. Immediately, the difficulties begin to crowd upon us. If there are to be only 250 Members altogether, we are immediately cramped in giving representation not only to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but to the regions of England. We have not got the same amount of water in which to swim as in a Chamber of over 1,000 Members.

But the difficulty is far greater than the mere limitation upon the total number. There is the party and non-party breakdown of these 230 Members. So it is necessary to have regard both to regional and local representation and to the party breakdown in constituting this new and much more complex voting House of Lords.

Some of the difficulties—it seems a long time ago now, but it is the same

debate—were illustrated very effectively by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). But even he did not probe all the complexities which arise from the simple attempt, in the proposed nominated Chamber, to have representation of local and regional interests.

It is not only the party complexions of the 230 Members; it is the fact that into those 230 Members we have to fit, so the Government tell us, 77, give or take one or two either way perhaps, peers by succession, who themselves break down into a definite, already calculated and apparently agreed pattern. Although we have not been told, that can be elicited from the effective cross-examination by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). At any rate, there will have to be some breakdown of the 77, or thereabouts, peers by succession within the 230. That is another factor which has to be taken into account in securing, if it be at all possible, a properly balanced regional representation.

In addition to the original complexity of setting the thing up, with so many factors to take into account—no doubt computers would be used, because we are in the computer age and I dare say that all the possible qualifications of all the possible peers would be put through computers and they would come out, as usual, with some absurd answer—it goes much beyond that. That is just the initial difficulty. Upon every change of party balance in the House of Commons it would be necessary, in readjusting the party structure in the nominated Chamber, to have an elaborate readjustment of the regional and local representation to keep it intact. I cannot imagine that it would be possible to combine these two requirements—we must remember that these are not requirements which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has invented; these requirements are in the Preamble to the Bill; these are the Government's requirements—I submit that it would not be possible to realise those requirements without a continuous and substantial escalation in the total numbers of another place. That would be the only way to solve the mathematical problems which would crowd on us with each successive General Election.

7.45 a.m.

In these Amendments we are looking at only one type of qualification of noble Lords in another place—if they are still to be noble Lords when they are nominated. I shall not trespass far in this direction, but I remind the Committee that there are all kinds of other sorts of interests, experience, and background, which we would all agree ought to be represented, and represented in some sort of balanced way, in this new nominated Chamber. So all those requirements would have to be superadded to the already intolerable complexities that I have envisaged.

The Government retort, "Why give yourselves all this trouble?". "Of course you get into difficulties", say the Government, "when you try to give precision in a Bill to what is imprecise"—I see the hon. Gentleman nodding—"in the Preamble". They say, "Leave it vague, and it will be all right". Some hours ago now we had a lecture from the Home Secretary, a lecture on convention, the basis of the working of the constitution, the indispensable sine qua non of our life together in this House. Of course it is, but the right hon. Gentleman misapplied the lesson. A convention is a habit into which people have already gradually and insensibly got over a time, so that in the end it becomes binding upon them.

Many of our most important procedures in this House are conventions, but they are conventions because they are habits of so long standing that we regard them now as rules which we are no longer able to break. That is what is known as a constitutional convention, something which has grown up over a long period of time, not by contrivance, not by being planned in advance, but because it so happened and was continued that in the end men said to one another, "This is good and indispensable and we will regard it as a convention which is binding upon us".

That is the place of convention in the life of Parliament. That is the place of convention in the constitution. It is not relevant here. We cannot suddenly say, "Let there be a convention". It is no means for the Government to ride out of all these difficulties by saying that there will be a convention. It is an impossible thing deliberately to define a rule and

say that this shall be a convention. What the Government are doing, when they find that they cannot define a rule in an intelligible way, is to say, "Well, there will be a convention". But they do not mean that there will be a convention. They mean something different. They are using an honourable name for a thing which, seen nakedly, most hon. Members would repudiate, the arbitrary decision and contrivance of the Executive, aided and abetted through the usual channels by the Opposition and third parties. That is what is being described as a convention.

When the Government say that it will be all right on the night, they mean, "We will fix it to our satisfaction". It is no escape from the inherent impossibilities of doing what they purport to offer, within the framework of such a Chamber as they are seeking to create, to say, "There is going to be a convention".

My hon. Friend and all of those of us who have spoken, and who will speak, in this debate have performed a valuable service in once again exposing the hollowness of the provisions which the Preamble appears to make. In this case we are also shown the value of that prescriptive Chamber which we are proposing to destroy in order to replace it with something we cannot explain, nor show how it would work at all intelligently or tolerably. We are blind and ungrateful if we do such a thing. The time we have spent and will spend on this Amendment will not have been wasted but will be richly rewarded if it brings this House to some knowledge of the wealth, including the wealth of convention, which we already possess, so that we become more loath than ever to cast it away.

Mr. Heffer: I would like to comment on some of the speeches I remember from earlier this morning, or perhaps even last evening.
I remember a speech by the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). I am sorry that she is not here to hear me, because I was a little saddened by her speech. It had a great contradiction in it. On the one hand, she said that she had gone through the Lobby with me and my hon. Friends because she agreed basically with our idea that the House of Lords should be abolished.
Then the hon. Lady came to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member


for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and said that she felt she had to support this, which was a complete reversal of abolition of the House of Lords. In effect, I suppose, she thinks that she has to support the hon. Member because his Amendment refers to Scotland, and her party demands that she must be interested in Scotland whether it is right or wrong. It is a fantastic situation to say that one is against the House of Lords and then to come up with arguments supporting the hon. Member for Ayr. With my simple mind, I find it difficult to take in.
The hon. Member has argued the case for the continuation of the House of Lords, not necessarily as in this Bill, but as a separate concept. He would not agree to abolition.
Much of what the hon. Lady has said is illogical because of her Scottish nationalism, which I find a totally illogical thing to argue. I suppose that Scottish, like Welsh, nationalism has moments when there are economic difficulties. I have looked into this matter and find that there is a rise of Welsh and Scottish nationalism when the economic problems of the two countries have been acute and also when there has been disillusionment with central Government.
I did this research because I was asked by a German to write an article on Scottish nationalism, a subject about which I knew nothing. Other hon. Members must have been in similar positions. Scottish and Welsh nationalism leads also to local nationalism. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has often accused me of being a thorough-going Liverpool nationalist, because I feel that Liverpool does not get enough attention, and that we might do better with a huge wall around Merseyside.

The Amendment of my hon. Friend says that the "standard regions" of England and Wales should have no fewer than five voting peers each in another place. But, of five for the standard North-West, not one might be for Liverpool or Merseyside. I would not want five voting peers for Manchester without one for Liverpool. I cannot support the Amendment, therefore, because it is not sensible and would not secure proper distribution. But, with a second Chamber elected on a constituency or area

basis, this problem would not arise, because each area would have automatic representation.

This argument leads me into conflict with the Amendments of the hon. Member for Ayr. I am not sure whether we should encourage the division of our country into separate countries. Even regional government, for Yorkshire, say, or Devon or Cornwall, would not be based on nationality. Nationalism is very out-dated. A Welshman with whom I worked explained to me that if a Welshman's language was being taken away from him, it was like losing his left arm. I understand that. It would be tragic and wrong, and no one should do it.

8.0 a.m.

The argument is not the same for Scotland. I understand that the Gaelic language is spoken only in the Outer Isles, and is not widespread. The important thing is that in our country the free flow of people from one region to the other—from Scotland to England, from England to Wales, and so on—is essential if we are to build a sensible economy.

Sir D. Glover: Surely there is a misunderstanding about State or regional government. There is no difficulty with the Governments of the United States or Australia, yet both countries are divided into separate States, with their own Parliaments.

Mr. Heffer: Regional government is quite right, but that is not the idea of the Scottish or Welsh nationalists. They do not want regional government as we would envisage it. They want a separate national Government. It would not do either country any good to have separate Governments.
I have much sympathy with the Welsh. There was no Act of Union in their case; it was an act of conquest. The poor welsh were conquered, and I can understand their being a little upset in relation to the English—more upset than the Scots have a right to be, because at least in their case there was a voluntary agreement. There is a distinction between the two, and in my opinion it would be a retrogressive step to move away from the idea of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Younger: I agree with nearly all of what the hon. Member has said, but


Scotland has had individual regional representation in the Upper House for 250 years.

Mr. Heffer: I do not suggest that if we had a democratically elected second Chamber the Scots as well as the Welsh should not have their proper representation, but I am against the idea of nomination. That is why I oppose the Amendments. I find the idea of nomination impossible to accept. In any case, I imagine that this system of nomination would affect only a minority of peers.
None of us knows what the numbers will be, but we all have a good idea of the ones who will be appointed, assuming that only life peers will be accepted—although some hereditary peers might think they had a right to be there and would want to be nominated. I can see a great deal of difficulty and confusion arising.

Mr. Younger: I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider the Amendment in the context of the Bill. The objections which he is voicing against the Amendment may be applied to the whole Measure.

Mr. Heffer: I agree. I reject both the Amendment and the Bill, although I appreciate the purpose of the Amendment.
The Preamble accepts that there must be in the Lords people who are representative of the various parts of the United Kingdom. Since a Commission is looking into the whole structure of local government, we should not be tinkering with the Lords in this way because when we get the report of that Commission we may have to go over all this ground again.
When that report is received, we may find ourselves with regional governments and the possibility of having representatives of those governments in the Lords. Alternatively, perhaps we will not need a House of Lords. Those regional governments might provide the necessary check on this Chamber. There are many possibilities and while I appreciate the thinking behind the Amendment, I cannot support it.

Mr. Wylie: I want to address myself particularly to Amendment 156. It seems to me that the issue between my hon.

Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), his ideas in his Amendment, and the Government's proposals, is very narrow indeed. No one is disputing, as I understand, that there must be strong Scottish representation in the reconstituted House of Lords. That is recognised in the Preamble to the Bill, and it is also recognised in paragraph 50 of the White Paper, to which reference has been made before:
There are strong constitutional arguments, based on the presence of Scottish peers in the House of Lords ever since 1707, and practical arguments arising from the existence of separate Scottish law, which make it particularly important that the reformed House should include a suitable number of Scottish peers.
So there is no dispute about that. The dispute is over the question, should there be written into the Bill a specific provision along the kind of lines my hon. Friend proposes, or should this be left to be sorted out by Executive action as occasion arises?
I would be the last to undermine the legitimate claims of every region in the United Kingdom for representation in the reconstituted House of Lords, if we have got to have that at all, but I submit that there is a special case for Scotland. Scotland is not just a region. I do not put that proposition forward with any sense of arrogance at all. I put it forward as a fact. Scotland is a nation.
Notwithstanding 250 years of close cooperation and close unification with England and Wales, Scotland has preserved her identity as a nation through the existence of her separate legal system. It is the legal system of Scotland which has preserved the separate identity of the Scottish nation, and it is that very legal system, of course, which requires, in my submission, the particular claim which Scotland has for this kind of special treatment, if that is the way to put it.
Now, why should the promoters of this Amendment seek to write into the Bill a provision such as that contained in Amendment No. 156? The reason is that it was part of the agreement reached between the two independent countries in 1707, that there should be, written in statutory form, adequate representation for the Scottish peerage.
I recognise that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out,


modifications in the Act, and in corresponding legislation for Ireland, have taken place. I recognise the effect of the development of the doctrine of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament on this type of legislation. I would only say that that doctrine which developed late in the 18th and in the 19th century developed since the Act of Union was passed, and it certainly was no part of Scottish constitutional law. The doctrine of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament formed no part of Scottish constitutional law, and this was recognised in a case in the Scottish courts as recently as 1953, when the Royal Title was challenged; that was recognised by the Lord President of the Court of Session.
8.15 a.m.
While it may be perfectly competent for Parliament to write out that statutory provision in the Act of Union, and to deal with legislation as proposed in the Bill, to do so would be contrary to the principle and spirit of that Act. This is the worst moment that could be found to do something so blatantly contrary to the spirit of that legislation. If we recognise, as everyone does, that there must be strong Scottish representation in a reformed House of Lords, for practical as well as constitutional reasons, why cannot we recognise it in the Statute?
There may be criticisms of the Amendment, but those on the words "ordinarily resident" are not well founded. They are well recognised in statutory practice. There may be defects in the drafting, but I urge the Government to think again about this. If we recognise the need, and are to do this anyway, why cannot we write it into the Statute? That is my hon. Friend's basic request.

Mr. Sheldon: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 187, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell). It would bring in a new subsection (5) stating:
At the beginning of each Session of Parliament the Lord Chancellor shall compile a roll of the voting peers, specifying particularly those voting peers who are ordinarily resident in each of the standard regions of England and Wales and shall lay this register on the table of the House of Lords;
So far, it is in almost precisely the same terms as Amendment No. 156. It continues:

and if it shall appear from the said register that fewer than five voting peers are ordinarily resident in each of the standard regions of England and Wales, the House shall by resolution pray Her Majesty to create sufficient voting peers so that the total number thereof shall comprise not less than five voting peers from each of the standard regions of England and Wales.
That is not the precise form in which I would have wished the Amendment to be tabled. But as it came in late—it is a starred Amendment—I realised that the only chance of getting it selected was to introduce the question of regionalism in an attempt to get the debate, which would otherwise have been on the narrow issue of Scottish representation, broadened into a regional debate. I tried to introduce this factor into another Amendment, which was not selected.
It is on the broader point that I wish to speak. I am not too closely wedded to the precise wording of the Amendment, based as it is on Amendment 156. I am not too happy about specifying the precise numbers, or the manner in which they are laid before the House. What I am very concerned about is obtaining some representation with guarantees—much more than are in the Bill or the White Paper—of a distribution of peers, drawing their strength from different parts of the country. My research on this was based on life peers, which is different from the research of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It is no use going to the peers, because most of them are peers of succession and will not be represented in the new Chamber. If we wish to get an idea of the background of the peers, we should think more in terms of the life peers, because about 150 Members of the other place are to be life peers. They will constitute a very large proportion of its membership. I selected 25 per cent. of the 150 at random and I believe that the results are reasonably representative.
About 60 per cent. of the life peers live in London—and by "live" I mean that they reside here and do not just have club addresses, for example. That is no great surprise but it reinforces something many of us had assumed from the way in which life peers have so far been chosen. In the regions, the proportions are much lower than would be obtained by distribution based on


population. For example, my area has a representation much lower than I regard as adequate in terms of population.
Again this does not come as a surprise, since life peers in the main are successful men and women and such people, even if they do not start in London, tend largely to gravitate there. Since life peers are usually past their prime, it is reasonable to assume that the knowledge which at one stage they possessed about their regions of origin will have been very much diminished by time.
If we are to decide whether a life peer has a genuine connection with his region of origin, it is not enough merely to consider where he came from. All too often, one meets people who have a sentimental regard for their origins, which is admirable but is no substitute for an up-to-date knowledge of the problems of those areas.
Sentimentality is no substitute for this kind of realism that can only come about by an understanding, not of the problems of one's youth, but of the present. The average age in my sample is 67. Any knowledge of their regions from their past is not likely to have survived very well into old age. These people may have been appointed in a regional sense because, although they live in London they originally came from a certain area. Regional representation would therefore be very poor. We must write something into the Bill to change this.

Mr. Younger: I do not think that the people to whom the hon. Member is referring would come within his Amendment. If they were living in London and had in the remote past been connected with a region, they could not be described as ordinarily resident in that region.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was dealing with the situation in which life peers might be created with this in mind. I was trying to show how involved this argument could become and that the true representation could only come from the close personal association with the region, which normally involves residence in that region.

Mr. Wylie: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that these are cogent reasons for

some such test, such as being ordinarily resident, being applied for regional representation?

Mr. Sheldon: I accept that without question. For those who are aged about 67—and are peers—these problems can be difficult to deal with. Add to that living almost entirely in London, and the barrier between them and what is going on in different parts of the country becomes intolerable. Those peers doing valuable service in the regions should have close links with the community. Not many had in industrial areas before the Peerages Act. In Ashton-under-Lyne we have two such people, Lord Wright of Ashton-under-Lyne and Lord Rhodes, the former Member of Parliament for Ashton-under-Lyne, and a very distinguished Member at that. People such as these actively pursue their work in the area which gives them so much interest and pleasure. These people are the very epitome of the kind of peers we need, with some personal knowldge of the problems and with a continuing interest in an area.

[Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

8.30 a.m.

Each region has its own problems. The problems of the North-West are largely those associated with the decline of cotton and coal, those once great industries which are no longer able to influence the area by their wealth but which still have an influence on our surroundings. Ours are largely the problems of the "grey" areas, the need to bring in new industry and to deal with the slag heaps and the subsidence which are our legacy from the past.

Life peers can closely concern themselves with our problems of amenities and a certain amount of dereliction, and their work on matters of that kind could make a useful contribution in the House of Lords. They are problems which we often try to tackle in the House of Commons but which to many peers are less real because of their lack of direct regional understanding and experience based upon residence.

If there is to be remuneration in the other place—and the defeat of an earlier Amendment makes eventual remuneration far more likely—what will be the


effect? A small number of attendances will qualify a peer for the money. If one-third of attendances are required to secure the £2,000 a year, about 40 attendances a year will suffice. That is roughly £50 per attendance, about as much as many of the most successful people in business or a profession are likely to earn, and, what is more, it will be obtained for little effort. One will not have to be there all day. Just slipping in on one's way to the City, to Harley Street or to the office will suffice. Moreover, if one presents apologies for absence, as it were, if one is sick or on Parliamentary or even public business——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting rather far from regional representation. Will he please come back to his Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon: I apologise, Mr. Brewis. I had in mind the great advantage which the likely system of remuneration will confer on the London-based peer as opposed to the peer with his roots and his residence in the regions. The £50 picked up between flat and office, in passing, would not be available to the peer residing in Scotland, Yorkshire or the North-West. Such peers will have to travel from the regions to London and it is my experience that these are the people to whom the £2,000 will not bring anything like the remuneration which London-based peers will receive, because the former will have to put up at hotels and may make a whole day, or two or three days, of it to justify the expenditure of time. These people will be put at a serious disadvantage.
We all know of the disadvantage suffered by provincial Members of the House of Commons, but at least to some extent it is offset by the fact that we have a full working week, which is not the aim for the House of Lords. Furthermore, we do not have such easy ways of raising the money as slipping in and out as we pass by. We all know that we have been here for the last 24 hours, or whatever it is, and we certainly earn our money in a way which is not proposed for certain peers.
Certain disadvantages will be attached to those members of the House of Lords

who happen to live in the regions and who will be rather harder to recruit. It will be easy to recruit members of the House of Lords, but the truly valuable members of the House of Lords who reside in the regions will be the hardest to recruit. These will be the people who are already playing important parts in the lives of their regions, and if we are not to have a differential, which would obviously be impossible, there will be considerable unfairness between a London-based peer, who will be in the majority—60 per cent. are to be London-based—and to whom a further incentive is to be given, and the peer from the regions.

Mr. John Ryan: Why does my hon. Friend regard it as impossible to have a differential payment to regional peers? Will he examine that further?

Mr. Sheldon: This is such an appallingly complex and mixed-up Bill that I hesitate to introduce further complications when the present complications have not been cleared up. If I thought that we were getting near the stage of having a Bill which we might admire, I might agree that it was possible to refine it. But there are so many things wrong with the Bill and it has so many anomalies that I hesitate to add yet another burden.
As with so much else in the Bill, this is a problem which has not been properly thought out. Everyone paid lip-service to the idea that the new peers in the House of Lords would provide adequate regional representation. We all felt very happy, because at the time we were all region-conscious and we understood that the problems in one part of the country were not the same as the problems in another, and we understood why. It is only when we analyse the result of remunerating the peers that we can see that it will give a further incentive to the already large incentive for London-based peers.
We need to change the incentive to give regional-based peers some recognition of the services which they can bring to the deliberations of the House of Lords and to provide some encouragement for them. I admit that the Amendment may be imperfect, but at least its intentions are on the right lines.

Mr. MacArthur: I have much sympathy with the objective of the Amendment. On the face of it, it would appear that it is much the same as what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is trying to secure in his Scottish Amendment. But there are, I think, some important differences, and the primary one is the fact that the representation of Scottish peers in the House of Lords is already protected by Statute, and has been in one form or another since 1707.
I appreciate, of course, that there is a great deal of attraction in trying to lay down that a set number of peers should be drawn from each of the standard regions in England and Wales. I believe, though, that if we were to extend what I might call the Scottish principle, where there is a special case, right through the various regions of England and Wales, we should be inviting the sort of complications which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) described and which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) called our attention to earlier in this debate.
Already the problems arising from the curious formula set out in the White Paper are going to be serious enough. If we had to superimpose on the figure formula a regional representation drawn as tightly as in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, I think we should be in trouble indeed.
I would remind the Committee that unless I totally misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, there is a very significant consequence which will flow from the Government's determination to make these provisions effective before the next General Election. If the House of Lords is reformed before the next General Election on the basis of 230 voting peers, and if at the General Election, which no doubt will follow quite soon afterwards, the Conservative Party is victorious, the new Conservative Government will find it necessary to create 52 or more voting peers in order to retain the ten per cent. majority formula set out in paragraph 48 of the White Paper, and within that year regional representation will have to be looked at all over again, and I think we should find that any room for manoeuvre would have disappeared altogether.
Having said that, I should like to comment for a moment on the speech the Minister made some time ago. I must confess that I thought he had missed the statutory point completely, and had failed to understand why my hon. Friend had introduced one-tenth as the proportion of the voting peers who should be normally resident in Scotland. The Minister suggested that this had some-thing to do with population. That certainly was a part of the argument, but a very small part indeed. I believe that the one-tenth figure suggested by my hon. Friend is crucial to the whole argument, and I would like to give what I think were the reasons for reaching that proportion.
In order to understand why one-tenth appears in our Amendment, it is necessary for a moment to look at the arguments which lead up to the creation of 16 as the number of Scottish peers who would come to represent the Scottish peerage in another place after the Act of Union in 1707.
The contemporary evidence is not conclusive, but it is clear that the Commissioners who came together to discuss this question—the number of members who should come to join the two Houses of Parliament at Westminster—had regard to the level of revenue and to the level of population also.
8.45 a.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr spelt this out, and I will not go through it again, but the ratio agreed for the House of Commons was approximately 1:11, and the ratio agreed for the House of Lords was approximately 1: 12. This compared with a very different pattern in population and revenue terms. The population was in the ratio, so far as it can be assessed today, of 1: 5½, whereas wealth, reflected in Customs and Excise revenue and the Land Tax yield was in the ratio of about 1: 38.
It is difficult to find precise comparisons, but some of the comments of the time show that the Commissioners were satisfied that they had achieved a reasonable relationship between the level of taxation and the level of representation, and between the size of the population and the size of the representation.
One of the standard works for that period is Bishop Burnet's "History of


His Own Time." On page 281 of the 1833 Edition, Bishop Burnet writes this:
It is held a maxim, that in the framing of a government, a proportion ought to be observed between the share in the legislature, and the burden to be borne; vet in return of the fortieth part of the burden, they offered the Scotch near the eleventh part of the legislature; for the peers of Scotland were to be represented by sixteen peers ….
It was argued by some that the representation of the Scots peerage should have regard to the influence of the Scottish peers in Edinburgh in bringing about the Treaty of Union. Bishop Burnet has an interesting comment on this method of assessing the extent of the Scottish representation:
It was visible, that the nobility of that kingdom suffered a great diminution by it; for though it was agreed, that they should enjoy all the other privileges of the peers of England, yet the greatest of them all, which was the voting in the house of lords, was restrained to sixteen, to be elected by the rest at every new parliament;
In all fairness, this view has been questioned, and there is a footnote to the 1833 Edition, but not elsewhere, by the Earl of Dartmouth. He pointed out that this opinion was the Bishop's and his only, and he went on to say that the voting of the Scots peers—
for a representation in the house of lords was more than an equivalent for sitting in their own parliament; where they sat with the commons, and had only an equal vote with the rest of the company. The chief of them thought themselves sure of being elected; the generality were very poor, and had been mostly raised by high commissioners to serve a term; and the privilege of not being arrested was a valuable one to them; besides the being triable by the house of lords only was a vast security to the best of them, who were entirely at the mercy of the court before; with a great many other immunities they had never been entitled to.
The impartiality of the noble Lord may be questioned, because the next sentence reads:
For in truth there was little distinction between them and the commons but high titles, that had been liberally bestowed, and afterwards used for a lame leg to beg with,
That note is sufficient to end my references to Bishop Burnet and my comments on his writing.

Mr. Powell: Will my hon. Friend allow me to insert at the end of that quotation the fact that in the election of Scottish representative peers many of the Scottish peers were so poor or insignificant

that they were purchased by the dozen by those who contracted to produce the votes?

Mr. MacArthur: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not pursue that point, which does not help the argument I am advancing.
There was very hard bargaining, although the opponents of union—and they were many—had little regard for the stand taken by their Commissioners debating the terms of the Treaty.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr pointed out, the English Commissioners were originally prepared to promise 38 Members of the House of Commons to Scotland, a figure which in the negotiations was raised to 45 which which was finally included in the Act.
The number of peers, however, remained at 16. There is no record of this figure having been argued about at any length.
Lockhart, the Jacobite, whose memoirs read like a Scottish Nationalistic election address still, felt that the Scots had been had, because he said:
It consisting with my certain knowledge that the English did design from the beginning to give the Scots 45 Commoners and a proportionable number of peers. But had the Scots stood their ground, I have good reason to affirm that the English would have allowed a much greater number of representatives and abatement of taxes; for the English saw too plainly the advantage that would accrue to England by an union of the two Kingdoms upon this scheme, and would never have stuck at any terms to obtain it.
True or false, I do not know; but what is clear, from all the accounts of that time, is that the figure of 16 was reached apparently without great discussion or great opposition. What is significant is that that figure, after the Act of Union, became so entrenched a part of the constitution that it remained unchanged for 256 years. The number of Scots in another place increased as peerages of Great Britain and, later, the United Kingdom were bestowed upon them, but the original figure of 16 remained unchanged during all the vicissitudes of those 256 years, surviving Reform Acts, preceding and outliving the totally different system of representation for the Irish peerage. Indeed, the number remained unchanged until the Peerages Act, 1963. While that Act removed the representative principle, it


improved the representation of the Scottish peers in another place, because it provided that all of them should sit in the House of Lords.
In 1963 there was no breach of the principle of the Act of Union, because the Scottish peers, for the first time, obtained a representation of 100 per cent. of their number.
But the Bill of 1969, wretched in so many ways, breaches the principle of the Act of Union, because it makes no provision at all for Scottish representation in the reformed House.
If we accept the Bill without this, or a similar Amendment, we shall destroy a principle which has been carefully protected by our predecessors for 262 years. By doing that, we shall break the spirit of the Treaty which brought our two nations together.
I agree with those who have said that the Act of Union is not immutable. Of course it is not. What I believe is a matter for regard and respect is the spirit in which the Treaty was devised and in which the Act was finally passed. The spirit of that Treaty brought our two nations together, and we should be careful to protect it.
I recognise that the Prime Minister is aware of the need to have the various nations and regions of our countries represented in one way or another in the reformed House of Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr referred to the Prime Minister's statement on this matter, and I am sure that the Prime Minister was speaking frankly. The White Paper makes similar references. In paragraph 23 there is this forthright authoritative statement:
The Government certainly thinks it essential to include in the reformed House members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and from the regions of England, but does not believe that it would be desirable or practicable at this stage to establish a reformed second chamber on a regional basis.
Paragraph 50 says:
There are strong constitutional arguments, based on the presence of Scottish peers in the House of Lords ever since 1707, and practical arguments arising from the existence of separate Scottish law, which make it particularly important that the reformed House should include a suitable number of Scottish peers.
With respect to the White Paper, to the Prime Minister, and to the Preamble of the Bill, that is not an adequate assurance.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that he wanted to know how many, and how, and that is precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr and I want to know. We believe that the answer to "how many?" and "how?" is for this Amendment or one very like it to be incorporated in the Bill. The Bill must provide specifically for Scottish representation
There is another significant sentence in paragraph 50 of the White Paper:
There is at present in the House of Lords a considerable number of peers who can speak with authority on the needs of the different parts of the United Kingdom, and the objective must be to ensure that this situation continues in the future.
That is right. The interests of Scotland cannot be defended in another place unless it includes an assured minimum number of peers who can speak with authority on Scottish needs.
Perhaps I might give a few examples to show how important this is. If another place is considering the Scottish economy, it is essential that there should be a minimum number of voting peers present in the House who can speak with knowledge and authority on the impact of the Selective Employment Tax on the Scottish economy. They, and only they, can really know the impact that this wretched tax has had on service industries in Scotland. We must have in the other place people who live in the country, who can see the damaging policies of the Government at work, and who can comment sensibly and authoritatively on the effects of a tax such as this.
Equally, we need peers who, when debating employment in Scotland, know from their own experience what is happening in their localities to the local employment figures——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that Scottish peers who may be industrialists gain from the S.E.T.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman may advance that argument if he likes. I assure him that the impact of the S.E.T. is very damaging indeed, and that this is something which ordinary people know. Industrialists aside, ordinary people know what an impact the S.E.T. has had on the cost of living, and on all the services on which they depend.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose——

Mr. MacArthur: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue this part of my speech.
The other place also needs peers who know what is happening in Scotland where they live so that they can comment on the other aspects of the employment scene. They would know, and I submit that an English peer would not know, that since the right hon. Gentleman became Secretary of State for Scotland, employment in Scotland has dropped by 30,000 people, which is contrary to all the declarations of the Government.
9.0 a.m.
Scottish residents would know that in order to achieve the Secretary of State's own published target, 90,000 new jobs will have to be provided by next year. It is most unlikely that that will happen and it is important that a minimum number of Scottish voting peers should be provided so that that sort of opinion can be put before another place.
It seems likely that before long there will be a debate in another place about British Standard Time. Is it not important that another place should have a minimum number of Scottish peers who will have experience in their own homes of Standard Time, dark mornings, the extra cost and the misery it has brought. There are many other aspects of daily life which these peers can speak about with authority: the impact of fuel duty on costs in Scotland and the collapse of so many governmental policies and programmes.
The White Paper called attention in paragraph 50 not only to the constitutional argument based on the presence of Scottish peers ever since the 1707 Act, but to the practical argument arising from the existence of a separate Scottish law which my hon. and learned Friend dealt with admirably just now.
Many Scottish Bills are passing through Parliament. In the last long Session, the Scottish Grand and Standing Committees met 71 times considering Scottish matters, and above all legislation. A Standing Committee is now upstairs dealing with the Education (Scotland) Bill which will go to the House of Lords in due course. It is essential that when that is considered

in another place, there should be a minimum number of Scottish peers who can vote with authority.
This Bill will deprive Scottish local authorities of the right to charge fees for local schools and this is a serious interference with the principle of freedom of choice in education. It is important, on principle, that local education authorities should have some discretion in shaping the pattern of education in their areas.
Without a minimum number of Scottish peers to speak in debates with authority, Scottish topics would not be properly debated, nor debates on them properly attended.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman takes that argument to its logical conclusion, he will be advocating Home Rule.

Mr. MacArthur: Not at all, but that Scottish interests should be properly represented in the Lords. There is another reason for suggesting the one-tenth. The figure is reasonably in accord with the basis of the Commissioners' work of 1707. Whether or not it relates to the Scottish contribution to the Exchequer, the 10 per cent. is not unreasonable. The population point also occupied the Commissioners, and the one-tenth means that this is about Scotland's share of the population at present. About 10 per cent. of noble Lords now in another place reside in Scotland. They declare an address in Scotland, which would qualify them for inclusion in another place under the Amendment. Of the 1,062 peers in another place, 115 have addresses in Scotland; that is, 108 whose addresses I have been able to identify and seven others who do not disclose a Scottish address but who I know live in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Are they all Scots?

Mr. MacArthur: Not all, but there is nothing new in this. Over the years since 1707, the 16 peers have not always all been Scots. Sir James Ferguson makes this point forcibly in his book "The Sixteen Peers", which I recommend to the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Ross: Of the 16 peers elected in 1959, two gave English addresses.

Mr. MacArthur: I do not dispute this, but 115 Lords in another place today live in Scotland. Some will be English peers living in Scotland, but the vast majority are Scots. If I read out the list, in every name the right hon. Gentleman would hear the skirling of the pipes——

Mr. Ross: But many valuable Scottish peers who participate in another place are ordinarily resident in England, and the Amendment would exclude them.

Mr. MacArthur: Not at all. If they are worthy contributors to the workings of another place, they will be able to stay there. But not less than one-tenth should have their normal residence in Scotland The 115 represent 10·82 per cent, of the composition of another place, so that figure is about right on all counts.
We should pay special regard to the pattern of history and the care with which our predecessors guaranteed Scotland's representation in both Houses of Parliament. This can only be done through the Amendment or a similar one.

Mr. Callaghan: The speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) was comprehensive, and, I am sure, interesting, but some of his arguments sounded very familiar. Perhaps, in the middle of the night, coming events cast their shadow before. Many of the points have been dealt with.
This group of Amendments covers a wider range of affairs than Scotland, although that has predominated in the debate. Some English Members have spoken, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). There is no difference between any of the speakers on the need for strong regional representation for England, strong Welsh representation for Wales and strong Scottish representation for Scotland.
I thought, at one point, that the hon. Member was going to march with us, because he said that the spirit was more important than the actual terms. If I can satisfy him that the spirit is there and should be carried out, I hope that he will translate him speech into action when we come, as I shall shortly invite the Committee to do, to a conclusion.
There is no difference between us about the need for a suitable number of peers with a knowledge and experience of Scotland, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom, to be in the Upper House. I agree that it is very important in the case of Scottish peers, because of the need to secure proper examination of Scottish Bills. I leave aside the Treaty of Union at the moment. I do not wish to argue about it; I thought that the case was strongly made out. As for the spirit of the matter, from the calculations made in the discussions we had there is little doubt that Scotland will have more than 16 and more than the 10 per cent. which has been put forward in the Amendment. It almost certainly follows that this would be the case. That being so, I claim that the spirit of the Amendment is being met.
I can see no reasons—except technical ones—why it should not be written into the Bill, but it could be disadvantageous to Scotland. It could present difficulties for the House of Lords, and it seems fair to operate on the basis of the spirit and understandings to which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire referred.
If the Bill were to lay down minimum proportions of both voting and nonvoting peers for about a dozen different regions or countries of the United Kingdom it would be extremely difficult to comply with them all and at the same time to observe the conventions and the political balance of the House. That is a practical consideration, because there is no difference in principle about what we want to do; there never was in our discussions, and there is not now.
There was hardly a word of the hon. Member's speech with which I disagreed—certainly not on the point to which he referred at the start, namely, the difficulty of drawing English regions as tightly as the Scottish ones. That is quite right, so we should rely on the convention and upon the spirit in which it is being approached.
The only other major difference I have with the hon. Member is that he seemed to be unduly condemning a number of former Scottish Ministers by his insistence on the need for residence in Scotland. The former James Stuart would not have qualified; nor would Lord Drumalbyn,


nor Lord Craigton. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lord Reith?"] Lord Reith was a Minister of sorts, but not in the strict party sense. Sticking to those that we have known in this Chamber, it would be a bold man on either side of the Committee who would claim that because they did not reside in Scotland they did not understand Scotland's needs. That is the case that the hon. Member was making. The names to which I have referred illustrate the difficulties that would arise if an Amendment of this sort were to be put into the statutes.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), to whom I listen on legal questions with great interest and profit, seemed to dismiss rather lightly, with a wave of his Order Paper, the difficulty of defining those who are ordinarily resident in Scotland and those who are domiciled in Scotland. The meanings of the phrase "ordinarily resident" and the word "domiciled" he will probably know better than I do but, as I discovered in my time with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue—and as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will confirm—the courts are littered with cases concerning domicile and residence. It would be very poor advice from any Government if they asked the Committee to accept an Amendment that attempted to write in this phrase, which has been so productive of litigation in Inland Revenue cases, without a great deal more elucidation than we have had up to now.

Mr. Wylie: The Minister should recollect that I never used the word "domiciled". I agree that that is a very different thing. The phrase "ordinarily resident", as defined, is much simpler.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the hon. Member, but one Amendment refers to domicile. Those who tabled the Amendment were conscious of the difficulties. This is a practical problem, and none of the speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite about Scotland, while I agreed with them in principle, overcame the difficulties inherent in the Amendment. In other words, it cannot be shown that Scotland would do as well under the Amendment as it will do under the Bill as drafted.
9.15 a.m.
Although hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken in good faith and from a desire to assist, I do not believe that Scotland's interest would be served by accepting the Amendment. It would be better to rely on the spirit of the convention which has governed, and will continue to govern, this matter. The difficulty was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who said that successful people naturally gravitate towards London. Hon. Members may consider that to be either sensible or mad. I prefer to live outside London. It is all very well wanting to live in the centre when one is in one's 20s, but at my advanced age I would sooner be away from the place.
Both parties—and certainly the Prime Ministers of both parties—have found it difficult to get people to serve in the Lords if they live and work in the provinces, Scotland or in Wales. It is a continuing difficulty to find the appropriate people. This problem can best be overcome by making a conscious attempt—which is made by those concerned with these matters and which has been made by former Administrations—to ensure a fair balance from the regions.
We should be getting ourselves in a lot of trouble if, as one Amendment in the group suggests, we imposed a statutory obligation on the Lords in certain circumstances to accept a resolution praying Her Majesty to create more peers. Constitutional difficulties would arise if, for any reason, it wished to refrain from accepting such a resolution, if it felt that that was the best course to take.
For these reasons I must advise the Committee, on the basis of what has taken place so far and on the basis of the acceptance of the principle involved—and no hon. Member has challenged the strong desire of all the parties to see strong regional representation—to leave matters as proposed, coupled with the safeguard, if it is needed, contained in paragraph 31 of the White Paper, which says:
The Government does however see attraction in the possibility of a committee which, while possessing no power of nomination, would review periodically the composition of the reformed House and report, either to the Prime Minister or to Parliament, on any deficiences in the balance and range of the membership of the House.


It goes on to refer to its membership, and adds:
Its reports would enable Parliament and the country as a whole to satisfy themselves that the powers of patronage were not being abused.
I betray no secret in saying that when the three parties discussed these matters this was regarded as a committee which would look at this balance and see that it was being preserved, so that if Wales or Scotland fell behind—I do not believe that they will; and the same applies to the regions—it could draw attention to the fact. I believe that we shall find Prime Ministers careful in this matter, especially in view of the growth of regionalism, of which I am in favour and which—leaving Scotland and Wales for the moment—is a desirable development. Therefore, I do not feel that the Committee will ever have much to challenge—at least, not in my time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman used, no doubt inadvertently, the word "safeguard". On reflection, does he really feel that a statement in a White Paper, itself not embodied in the Bill, and amounting to no more than a Government saying that they see attraction in a committee, can compare as a safeguard with a statutory provision in the Bill?

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is comparing like with unlike.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Exactly.

Mr. Callaghan: Then there is not much point in making the comparison.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not making the comparison between putting this in the Bill and having a committee to safeguard these matters. I have explained before and will not go over it again—the right hon. Gentleman is acute enough to understand what I said—that I think that Scotland could come worse out of this as a result of the Amendment. For those practical difficulties I

invite the Committee to turn it down. The committee would be a safeguard as to whether the proper balance was being maintained.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer, that he must at times get away from the letter of the law and look at its spirit.
The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

All my hon. Friends, with our Baptist and even our Methodist backgrounds, know these texts. I commend them to the right hon. Gentleman. I repeat again—it is the essence of the scheme, which we cannot avoid, whatever arguments right hon. and hon. Members may advance, that it depends on conventions, good faith and understandings. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may dismiss all that. I agree that one cannot have good faith among people who are not gentlemen. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) is trying to attract that title to himself, he can.

What we have done is to insist and ensure that this good faith and these conventions will continue. When the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone is in a less excitable frame of mind he will quietly admit that this is so, and he knows it.

In Scotland's interest, I genuinely could not advise that the Amendment should be accepted. It is far better that we should operate on the basis laid down by the Government in the speeches that have been made.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 130, Noes 39.

Division No. 93.]
AYES
[9.23 a.m.


Alldritt, Waller
Binns, John
Brooks, Edwin


Anderson, Donald
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)


Archer, Peter
Blackburn, F.
Buchan, Norman


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Boyden, James
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Carmichael, Neil




Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howarth, Robert (Boiton, E.)
Oram, Albert E.


Coe, Denis
Hoy, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal, (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, Hugh
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dell, Edmund
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lubbock, Eric
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ellis, John
MacColl, James
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c' tle -u-Tyne)


English, Michael
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ennals, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ensor, David
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackie, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Fowler, Gerry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm
Urwin, T. W.


Gardner, Tony
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hamling, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hannan, Willam
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Woof, Robert


Harper, Joseph
Murray, Albert



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Neal, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Haseldine, Norman
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Neil McBride.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Ridsdale, Julian


Black, Sir Cyril
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ryan, John


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Sheldon, Robert


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Deedee, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Orme, Stanley
Wright, Esmond


Fortescue, Tim
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wylie, N. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'ford & Stone)
Paget, R. T.



Galbraith, Hn, T. G.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. George Younger and


Goodhart, Philip
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Ian Mac Arthur.


Hall, John (Wycombe)

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 34, Noes 131.

Division No. 94.]
AYES
[9.30 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhart, Philip
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Ridsdale, Julian


Black, Sir Cyril
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Iremonger, T. L.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lubbock, Eric
Ward, Dame Ircne


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Wright, Esmond


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Fortescue, Tim
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'frord & Stone)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Ian Mac Arthur and


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. George Younger.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, East)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon





NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Greenwod, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, Albert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Neal, Harold


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian


Binns, John
Hannan, William
Oram, Albert E


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Blackburn, F.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boyden, James
Haseldine, Norman
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Pentland, Norman


Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hoy, James
Probert, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rees, Merlyn


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Richard, Ivor


Carmichael Neil
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Coe, Denis
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell Tam
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire W.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lomas Kenneth
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Thomson, Ernest


Dell, Edmund
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


Doig, Peter
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Varley, Eric G.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Ensor, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
White, Mrs. Eirene


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Macpherson, Malcolm
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marks, Kenneth
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Fowler, Gerry
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freeson, Reginald
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
MY. Alan Pitch and


Gardner, Tony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Neil McBride.

The CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the Clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the Amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to

Standing Order No. 47 (Debate on Clause or Schedule standing part), That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes, 125, Noes 42.

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[9.36 a.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Crawshaw, Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Anderson, Donald
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Archer, Peter
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hamling, William


Binns, John
Delargy, Hugh
Hannan, William


Bishop, E. S.
Dell, Edmund
Harper, Joseph


Blackburn, F.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boyden, James
Doig, Peter
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Haseldine, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ellis, John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brooks, Edwin
English, Michael
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Ensor, David
Hoy, James


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hunter, Adam


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fowler, Gerry
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Coe, Denis
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Concannon, J. D.
Gardner, Tony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)




Lawson, George
Mulley, Rt, Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Murray, Albert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ogden, Eric
Skeffington, Arthur


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Malley, Brian
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Lipton, Marcus
Oram, Albert E.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Lomas, Kenneth
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Loughlin, Charles
Pavitt, Laurence
Thornton. Ernest


Macdonald, A. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Tinn, James


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Varley, Eric G.


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Pentland, Norman
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mackie, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Maclennan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, David (Consett)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rhodes, Geoffrey
White, Mrs. Eirene


MacPherson, Malcolm
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Millan, Bruce
Roborts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Woof, Robert


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)



Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c"tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Neil McBride.


NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hell, John (Wycombe)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Holland, Philip
Ridsdale, Julian


Black, Sir Cyril
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ryan, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Iremonger, T. L.
Sheldon, Robert


Braine, Bernard
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Waddington, David


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Wright, Esmond


Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley and


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. George Younger.


Goodhart, Philip

9.45 a.m.

The Chairman: The next Amendment selected is No. 20.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. Mr. Irving, when, on Clause 1, you exercised the discretion entrusted to you by Standing Order No. 47, I understood you to indicate at the time that it was not open to any hon. Member to challenge the exercise of your discretion save by the tabling of a substantive Motion.
For the guidance of the Committee, as you have again—and I am not at this stage voicing a criticism—exercised that discretion so that no debate on the Question, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, has been possible, will you tell me whether those of us who are profoundly disturbed by these decisions are left with the unhappy choice between either acquiescing in the decisions which, with great respect, we regard as wrong, or taking a course which I personally must very much regret having to take?

The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The procedure is that he must submit in the normal way a

substantive Motion which must go on the Order Paper.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: May I have your guidance, Mr. Irving?
Like several of my hon. Friends I attended the debate at 9 o'clock last night and, save for a brief interval for a bath and a shave, I have been here ever since. I aimed to make a speech on the general subject of the payment of peers, but the Closure was moved by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley). I aimed to make a speech on the regional qualifications of peers, but the Closure was moved by the Government Chief Whip, who had an agreeable night in bed following on a party. There was then no debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and I was wondering whether this did not cause you as much distress as it caused me and many of my hon. Friends.
I know how keen the Chair is to safeguard the rights of private Members, and I am sure that you personally are even more anxious than normally, but it does seem that the rights of private Members are being infringed, in that they stay


up for hours and are never likely to be called to make a speech during the debate on the entire Clause. I wonder what arrangements there are for overcoming this difficulty.

The Chairman: I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Member. I advised his right hon. Friend about procedure. I cannot hear the hon. Member further on this matter, which, indeed, is a criticism of the Chair.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Further to the point of order. We are in great difficulty, Mr. Irving, about the whole of the Bill. Neither Front Bench will say whether there is to be payment of peers. We do not know what to tell our constituents. We do not know what to tell the country. It is impossible to proceed——

The Chairman: Order. I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman is addressing me about. It does not appear to be a point of order.

Mr. Fraser: This is a point of order, I submit, Mr. Irving, in so far as it affects the reputation of the House of Commons.
We are attempting to legislate without any clarity of what either Government or Opposition objectives are. This surely must be a point of order, because the reputation of the House of Commons is at stake. We simply cannot go on in this fashion, making a monkey of the constitution, without telling the country what it will cost.

The Chairman: I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to the point of order——

The Chairman: It was not a point of order.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. I know that most of us who have been through the night in Committee are, perhaps, becoming a little jaded, and we all have the greatest sympathy with you in the task which has been placed upon you and are full of admiration for the way in which you are taking the Chair.
I am sure that the last thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) wanted to do

was in any way to come into conflict with the Chair, or to reflect upon the conduct of the Chair. His difficulty does not arise from the way in which the Chair has been taken—and, in my opinion, it has been taken in the most admirable manner. It arises from the insistence of Her Majesty's Government in applying the Closure to our debates.
We are debating a constitutional change to upset the growth of centuries and the Government expect this to be forced through within a few days. This is the difficulty in which we are placed. I appeal to you, Mr. Irving, to allow this point of view to be expressed in the hearing of Ministers so that they may reflect upon the way in which they are conducting these debates and allow free speech in the Committee, because it would be a tremendous reflection upon the House of Commons, and it would not look well in the history books of the future, if this great Measure is forced through in this unseemly manner. Indeed, it is becoming quite absurd that we are now still sitting——

The Chairman: Order. I have the gravamen of the point that the hon. Member is making. I am grateful to him for his earlier remarks. I cannot comment on the action of the Government. I might, however, comment on the question of the Closure which was raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). The rules of the House recognise that in the exercise of the Closure it will not be possible for every hon. Member who wishes to speak to do so.

Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order. I sympathise with you, Mr. Irving. I know that your task has been very difficult, as we have had such a long sitting, but my point of order is a simple one. I have wished to speak on some of the Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2. Every time I have got up to speak, the Closure has been moved.
I wonder, therefore, Mr. Irving, whether it is possible for you to protect the rights of back-benchers like myself who wish to speak on an important constitutional Bill so that we may express our opinion about it. Three times I have been thwarted by the decision of the Chair. Each time as I have got up to speak, the Closure has been moved.
I hope that when you are considering the future conduct of the Bill you will bear in mind the rights of back-benchers, and will consider allowing us, if it is possible, to debate the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. If we are allowed to debate this on further parts of the Bill, back-benchers like myself will be able to take part in what to many of us is a most important Constitutional Bill.

The Chairman: I am sorry if the hon. Member was unable to get in to the debate. I cannot comment further on that, and I cannot give any undertaking for the future. I have heard what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Sheldon: On a point of order. It may be of advantage to the Committee to know, and certainly I wish to know, whether, when you accept the Closure Motion, you consider the difference between this Bill and an ordinary one. Is this something that you take into account? If we could be informed whether the Chair recognises this as a rather different kind of Bill, perhaps we might adjust our speeches accordingly.
My second point relates to the selection of Amendments. Does this also——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has expressed both those points to me on more than one occasion during the course of the discussions on the Bill. I cannot discuss these matters beyond saying, as I have already said during this sitting, that the Chair, in exercising its discretion to accept such Motions, takes all the circumstances into account.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order. Mr. Irving, may I seek your guidance, and, with respect, put a point to you? In the terms of Standing Order No. 47,1 entirely appreciate that the purpose of a Standing Order is to avoid a repetition of the debate where one or more discussions on an Amendment to a Clause have in effect gone to the substance of the Clause.
The difficulty which I wish to put to you, and on which I think I am not the only Member who would, if you can give it, welcome your guidance, is this: before a Clause is passed there are often parts of the Clause on which elucidation is necessary. You will be aware that it

is often the custom to seek that elucidation by putting down Amendments to leave out a subsection, with no intention that it should be left out, but simply to have the opportunity of asking the Government, or a Law Officer, to clarify the meaning further.
Quite irrespective of Standing Order No. 47 and the judgment entrusted to you on that point, many of us are finding it difficult to get the elucidation which we require of parts of Clauses which have not arisen in the course of discussing Amendments, and which may not be part of the principle of the Clause. I am sure that any help you could give on that would be greatly appreciated.

The Chairman: The only way that I can help the right hon. Gentleman is by reiterating the terms of the Standing Order, which requires the Chairman to be satisfied about the principles of the Clause. Beyond that I cannot enter a discussion about the decision that I have taken.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. I feel sure that one of the considerations which the Chair takes into account in selecting Amendments is this purpose of Amendments, and the fact that where Standing Order No. 47 is invoked the possibility of obtaining elucidation by means of such Amendments automatically appears to disappear.

The Chairman: I cannot say other than what I have said, that all the circumstances are taken into account, both in the terms of selection, and in the exercise of discretion under Standing Order No. 47.

Mr. Alison: On a point of order. Mr. Irving. You were kind enough to elaborate a moment or two ago the Ruling that you gave by indicating, with your customary delicacy and restraint, that hon. Members could not always expect to be called before the Closure was moved. As one who has been here, without having shaved or bathed, since 9 o'clock last night, I find it extremely unusual, having been accustomed to speak on Finance Bills, to have been called to speak by the Chair, perversely, to support a Motion to report Progress, instead of on the substantive——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going over again a point of


order raised by one of his hon. Friends and with which I have already dealt.

10.0 a.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: Can you tell me, Mr. Irving, when, in the future discussion on the Bill, we shall be able to discuss the general principle of the restriction of the right to vote in the Lords, the underlying principle of Clause 2, which has not yet been discussed?

The Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot help the hon. Gentleman in this respect.

Mr. John Farr: May I put a fresh point, Mr. Irving? Some hon. Members have stayed here through the night during the discussions on Clause 2 and have not intervened, since the discussions so far have been largely on pay, regional representation and Scotland. There are several other points which many of us would like to raise on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and we would have been out of order in doing so earlier in the evening. How can the points which we want to raise and have waited here for some time to raise be dealt with properly?

The Chairman: I cannot add to what I have said. I cannot allow a discussion on the exercise of discretion under Standing Order No. 47.

Mr. Ridley: I am another who has been here all through the night. Although I was able to catch your eye on the Motion to report Progress, I was not able to speak on either Amendment. That shows, in passing, how many of us would like to contribute to these debates. Since this is a very important constitutional Bill, and since we are warned that we are unlikely to get a Report stage, this means that the only opportunity which hon. Members have to talk on various part of the Bill is on the Amendments as they come up one by one. particularly if you, Mr. Irvine, in your wisdom, do not allow a debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. This means that there is only one opportunity and that that has been closured by members of the Government. Surely it should not be allowed that the whole constitution can be changed in this way——

The Chairman: Order. The hon Member cannot speculate on the future stages of the Bill. I have already dealt with the rest of the substance of his point, so far as I am able to give guidance.

Mr. John Hall: I have listened carefully to the points of order which followed the Closure on this Clause. I cannot claim, as some of my colleagues on both sides have done, that I have been here all night, but I came here hoping to take part in the later stages of the debate on the Clause, since the question of voting peers was not covered by any of the Amendments.
We cannot challenge your Ruling, Mr. Irving, and go back on the Closure, which has been voted upon, but it would be helpful if you could give us some guidance for the future. If, on looking through the Amendments on any future Clause, we find that there are no Amendments covering various important aspects of a particular Clause, will you allow the debate to go wide enough to cover all these aspects, in case the Government closure the debate before we can make these points and you refuse to allow a debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
If you do not allow such a concession, you can see the difficulty in which the Committee is placed. It will find itself, time and time again, unable to debate vital matters relating to the Clause which have not been covered by Amendments which have been exhaustively discussed. Many hon. Members who wish to raise specific points will be completely shut out of the debate.

The Chairman: I have dealt with that point. The argument is against Standing Order No. 47, and the House and Committee have already approved that Standing Order. I cannot allow my exercise of it to be debated in the Committee.

Mr. Lubbock: Are you aware, Mr. Irving, that during this sitting so far 9 hours 50 minutes have been spent discussing the reform of another place, and that if it had not been for the filibusters by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee plenty of opportunities could have been found to discuss the points of substance in the Bill?

Mr. Paget: My problem is that I have not been here all night but I have been recalled and, like many other hon. Members, have appointments for today—one not far from the residence of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). It is very important for hon. Members to know the Government's intentions for today. I should, therefore, like to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, so as to provide an opportunity for the Government to disclose to the Committee their intentions.
This is not merely a question of the convenience of hon. Members; it is a question of the convenience of many other people who are depending on the presence of hon. Members elsewhere. We have no idea whether we shall be able to keep our appointments, or what we shall be able to do. Now that we have disposed of the Clause and progress is being made, surely we should be allowed to provide the Government with an opportunity to express their intentions.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member has raised two points. First, the question of the timetable of business is a matter for the Government. On the second point—the submission by the hon. and learned Member of a Motion to report Progress—I cannot accept the Motion.

Mr. John Hall: May I put one point to you, Mr. Irving? Last night, or in the early hours of this morning, it will not have escaped your recollection that mild protests were registered by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about the action of the Government Whip who closured a debate. During the course of the exchanges which followed you will recall that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) attempted to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
At the same time, you will recollect that you said that if we were able to get on with the debate the Motion might be put again. The inference—at least in my mind and in the minds of many other hon. Members—was that if we made some progress during the night you would look favourably on a Motion to report Progress. I am distressed that at ten minutes past ten o'clock in the morning,

when hon. Members are too jaded to give proper attention to the matters being debated, you will not accept such a Motion, moved by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I hope that you will reconsider the question.

The Chairman: The Chair does not decide the Question. The province of the Chair is only to decide whether it accepts the submission. In the early hours of the morning the Chair rejected a submission made by an hon. Member, but that did not decide the issue and there was a long debate on the Motion. That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Paget: Further to my point of order You, Mr. Irving, cannot decide the Government timetable. That is entirely for the Government. The traditional opportunity for the Government to explain their timetable is on a Motion to report Progress. Such a Motion is regularly moved, for example, on Finance Bills, at which point the Government say how much progress they wish to make, how many Clauses they intend to get and how the time will be used. Would you agree, Mr. Irving, that the Government should use this opportunity to explain their position to the Committee so that hon. Members may inform those people with whom they have appointments elsewhere?

Sir Gerald Nabarro: On a point of order——

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order——

The Chairman: Order. I must call hon. Members in turn. Mr. Hugh Fraser.

Mr. Fraser: As the Leader of the House is in his place, and as it is the duty of the right non. Gentleman to protect the interests of hon. Members and the Committee, may I urge him, Mr. Irving, to explain the Government's intensions in this matter? It is absurd that Government spokesmen should sit silently sulking when there are people outside who are dependent on the movement of hon. Members but who cannot be informed about the likely intentions of the Government with regard to time. Will the Leader of the House now make a statement?

The Chairman: Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman will make a statement is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I am in some difficulty. I ask you, Mr. Irving, to reconsider your Ruling in this matter. I have been here all night, protecting the interests of my constituents who are Members of the other place and who are anxious to know more about the emoluments which they may receive when the Bill becomes law. But I am in a dilemma. Like most hon. Members, recently I have received bulky documents representing the various Estimates, both Civil and Defence. These documents, which affect the financial affairs of the nation, must be carefully studied by hon. Members. We must——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to get me to change my mind on the Ruling which I gave to the submission made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I cannot do that.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Order. I was in the midst of putting a point of order.

The Chairman: I will hear points of order in turn. Does the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) have new material to submit to me?

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I probably have not made myself very clear. I do not wish to discuss in detail the contents of those bulky volumes. But we cannot devote our attention to the affairs of this House if we do not get the time and opportunity to consider the documents in preparation for the debates on the Defence Estimates, and there are other documents.
Having sacrificed myself during the night on the altar of my constituents who are Members of the House of Lords, I am now debarred, if the debate goes on, from giving the necessary attention to my other constituents who are interested in reducing public expenditure.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate on a point of order the Motion to report Progress.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am in some difficulty, Mr. Irving, and I seek your guidance on a point of order. Like the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I have just returned to the Committee after eight hours' sleep, and, appropriately refreshed I am, I am—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ready for the Select Committee."] If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I will deal with the Select Committee. That is the very point of order I am raising.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Irving. Which takes precedence—the affairs of this Committee on the Floor of the House or the Select Committee dealing with my affairs upstairs? As you know—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) goes on interrupting me my point of order will take——

Mr. Lubbock: It is not a point of order.

Sir G. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman——

The Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address the Chair.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am sorry, but I am being interrupted so heavily by Orpington that I cannot get on with my point of order.

Mr. Lubbock: It is not a point of order.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would you, Mr. Irving, cause Orpington to stop bawling at me that it is not a point of order? It is a point of order.
As the Select Committee, dealing with vehicle excise duties, meets again at 4.30 tomorrow afternoon, and I have 16 hours' homework to do in preparation for it, and cannot be present on the Floor of the House, which is to take precedence—the Select Committee or the debates on this Bill? The hon. and learned Member for Northampton seeks to hunt with the Pytchley in a few hours' time and I seek to do my homework for the Select Committee. These are very important duties, his sporting and mine Parliamentary. Would not it be reasonable for the Leader of the House now to have an adjournment until 3.30? The right hon. Gentleman might hear me without nodding dissent, but at least I have his ear.
Which takes precedence, the sporting affairs of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and my Parliamentary affairs outside the House, or the deliberation on the Bill? Is not it being extended beyond all human reasonableness to go on for this inordinate length of time? It is now 19 hours since the debates began. Many of my hon. Friends are asleep on their feet, or bottoms, and should be given a respite to enjoy the refreshment that I have enjoyed during the past eight hours—eight hours in my bed followed by a good breakfast, a shave and a bath, and then my return to the House properly refreshed. That is my point of order.

The Chairman: Order. Decisions on the questions that the hon. Member put to me are matters for him and the hon. and learned Member. I cannot help him.

Mr. A. Woodburn: On a point of order. Is it not the case that the various Standing Orders which you have quoted have been made to prevent minorities in the House obstructing the business of the House? Have we not, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) rightly said, been subjected to ridiculous, stupid filibustering that brings the House of Commons into disrepute? Is there nothing in Standing Orders to prevent such disgraceful behaviour, which makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of the public?

The Chairman: Order. I cannot allow discussions on Standing Orders.

Mr. Dudley Smith: May I again appeal through you, Mr. Irving, to the Leader of the House? There are ugly rumours going around that the Government intend going throughout the rest of the day, thus killing Question Time——

The Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair. The hon. Gentleman must find an opportunity to address his question to the Leader of the House, but not in Committee.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My point is on the precedents. Ministers have come to the Committee, as did the Home Secretary, when he was Chancellor, on the Finance Bill, and given us an indication of the Governments intentions, not always

firm, but saying that they thought it necessary to make a little more progress, or that they would go on much longer. While I have been here this morning, we have had no such indication.

The Chairman: Order. I must confirm what I have already said to the hon. Gentleman. This is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). A good deal has been heard during the last few hours about the rights of minorities and the dangers of creating precedents. May I put it that, although the Bill does not have unanimous support from both sides, this is not an exceptional position? If it is to be the practice that the rules of order are to be so abused that a Bill is incapable of meaningful discussion, then this will be a precedent for those of us who may feel strong opposition to future Bills. We may feel that during the speeches of hon. Members, no matter how distinguished, points of order will occur to us in rapid and endless succession. The House will become a laughing-stock, requiring no doubt a Parliament (No. 3) Bill designed to protect itself. I ask you, in the interests of good government, whether this sort of nonsense cannot be put an end to forthwith under the rules of order.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point of order, if point of order it was, is an argument for getting on to the next Amendment. Mr. Sheldon.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Chairman: If hon. Gentlemen are raising anything new—Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Irving, that it is nearly half past ten. At that hour a number of hon. Members of the Committee have to attend other Committees. These include my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Irving, to what was said by——

The Chairman: Order. I have ruled on this point of order which was submitted to me by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). This is a matter for the hon. Member, not the Committee or the Chair. Mr. Sheldon.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. When this point was raised with you, Mr. Irving, and you gave your Ruling, the Leader of the House, in his kindness, said that he would make certain that hon. Members serving on a certain Scottish Committee would not be inconvenienced by the Scottish Committee sitting at the same time as a certain Amendment was being discussed in the Chamber. This has set a firm precedent. There are no fewer than four or five hon. Members on this side of the Committee—I cannot speak for hon. Members opposite—who intend to take a prominent part in that debate and in debates in Standing Committees.
Surely what the Leader of the House was prepared to do last week he must be prepared to do today for the same type of situation.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons: The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons rose——

Mr. Paget: On a point of order.

Mr. Peart: Oh, no.

The Chairman: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is addressing me on a point of order.

Mr. Paget: That is precisely what I wanted to ask—on what Question is the Leader of the House addressing us?

The Chairman: I thought that I made it clear that he was addressing us on a point of order. That was why I did not call the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Peart: I may be able to help the Committee. It is obviously my task to bear in mind the interests of all my colleagues. I have to try to help to get Government business through and to protect the right of the minority.

Sir G. Nabarro: The oppressed minority.

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend—I hope that I may still call him my hon. Friend——

Sir G. Nabarro: Certainly.

Mr. Peart: —will recognise that I intervene in good faith. We have had a very long sitting. Let us get along as best we can. I shall be delighted to have discussions with the usual channels. This is the way we must proceed. I hope that hon. Members will remember that Parliament is an important subject for discussion. I have listened to many debates throughout the night. I hope that those who oppose the Bill and those who accept it will let me have an opportunity to discuss matters with the usual channels. I shall be only too pleased to do so and to report to the Committee, but let us get on.

Mr. Iremonger: Further to that point of order.

The Chairman: Order. I should have thought that it was the wish of the Committee, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, to give him the opportunity for which he has asked.

Mr. Iremonger: Further to that point of order. I ask your patience and indulgence for one moment, Mr. Irving.
The Committee will have appreciated the thoughtful and considerate intervention of the Leader of the House which we took in the spirit in which he gave it, but he has raised a slight difficulty for those who oppose the Bill. He said, manifestly helpfully, that he would consider what should be done in consultation with the usual channels. The great problem is that the usual channels are not operating for this Bill. It is difficult for us to feel that consultations, which are undertaken in the best of good faith between the right hon. Gentleman and the usual channels, are consultations in our interests.

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. Sheldon.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Order. I called the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order.

The Chairman: I hope that neither hon. Gentlemen will persist. I have called Mr. Sheldon to move Amendment No. 20.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. I have no wish to intervene between the Committee and the hon. Member. I look forward to his speech.
However, the Leader of the House said that the future of our proceedings would be discussed through the usual channels. I am not clear whether there are any usual channels. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to find a way of doing what he says, well and good, but the usual channels do not now exist.

10.30 a.m.

The Chairman: I have already indicated to the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) that this is not a point of order.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Reference has been made to the usual channels. Are you aware, Mr. Irving, that the Tory Party has a free vote in this matter? There are no Tory Whips on and there are no usual channels. I do not receive any guidance from my Front Bench on these important matters. Would you, therefore, inquire, for the protection of an oppressed minority in this matter, what the right hon. Gentleman meant by the "usual channels", for there is none on this side?

The Chairman: I have already ruled that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Clause 3

VOTING DECLARATIONS

Mr. Sheldon: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 22, leave out' dissolution of the 'and insert:
'end of each session of'.

The Chairman: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments Nos. 88, 22, 24, 116, 90, 93 and 118.

Mr. Sheldon: We see the Government showing increasing distaste for the Bill. They are verging on near unanimity in that. The Opposition Front Bench puts in only rare and fleeting appearances and obviously has a similar distaste. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that there will be discussions through the usual channels. I am not sure whether he meant on the timing of the Bill or on its future existence. The problems for the Committee and the

Chair are increasing and you, Mr. Irving, are very much in the position of watching a steamroller which is out of control. No one knows how to stop it but everyone wants it to run out of steam quickly. At this stage we are still undecided about some important matters on which we shall need greater clarification and more information.

Amendment No. 20 has to do with voting declarations. It seeks to ensure that the declarations shall be submitted for each Session and not for each Parliament. This is closely linked with the age limit. Once a peer is created, he cannot subsequently be deprived of the right to apply for his voting declaration. He is given an absolute right, both in the White Paper and the Bill. But he has to satisfy the minimum requirements for attendance and to be not over the age of 72 at the beginning of each Parliament. This is a great feature of whatever independence he might be considered to possess.

Clearly, there will be a turnover of peers in the House of Lords. Some will have commitments elsewhere which will prevent them from putting in the necessary number of attendances. Others will go over the age limit. But we all know the great ease of avoiding a minimum attendance requirement. Peers have a device for obtaining leave from the House, and they can also, of course, plead illness, and such a provision is obviously reasonable. But all we are really dealing with are 40 days a year on which a peer can have this kind of exemption. Indeed—and this thread is inextricably woven into almost every discussion on any part of the Bill—for very little outlay of value to the community or usefulness to the House of Lords, they are able to obtain these not inconsiderable sums of money.

One of the advantages of a sessional declaration in preference to a declaration beginning of each Parliament is that one could vary the age limit. My Amendments Nos. 23 and 117, with which I had understood Amendment No. 20 was to have been taken in conjunction, formed part of the same theme, and Amendment No. 20 on its own does not really tell the final story. The whole that was envisaged was that new peers would have a maximum age of 65 on appointment, while present peers would have a


maximum age of 70, and that the voting declaration would be carried out at each Session.

The arrangements which have been made are technical ones. They naturally need to take into account the requirements of "topping-up" as Members of the Upper House leave through other commitments or on reaching the age of 72. The average age of retirement will be 72 plus half of a five year term of Parliament—which means, in practice, the age of 74 or of 75. At such an advanced age, a number of people will die and, as I have pointed out, this will be an important element in topping-up the House.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman says that the average age of retirement would be 72 plus half of a five year life of Parliament. Should he not rather have said 72, plus half the actual average length of Parliament, which is much less?

Mr. Sheldon: Yes. Clearly, I was thinking in terms of a five-year Parliament but, of course, if a Parliament is shorter than that, the age will be less. It is useful to think in terms of five-year Parliaments because, although they are not necessarily the rule, it gives us a figure on which to plan.
The present system of topping-up depends to a large extent on the anticipation of a fairly high proportion of deaths so that replacements can be made. However, there is an alternative way. One can get the same result by lowering the age limit to 70 and saying that at the end of each Session a fresh voting declaration shall be required. That would mean that, instead of the average age of retirement being, say, 74½it would be 70.
The death rates between 70 and 74½ vary considerably. If one takes the lower age limit, the amount of topping-up necessary due to deaths would be quite different from that it would be with a higher age limit. What it really comes to is that this is an incentive to pick rather younger men and women. One of the considerations in selecting younger men and women is their likely life span. We have no precise calculations, but it is obvious that to depend on deaths in this way is not the only solution to obtaining the two main requirements, one of which is a younger age of entry into the House of Lords,

and the other is an alternative means of getting a number of places available so as to take account of the different composition of the House of Commons.

These Amendments affect no great principle beyond the fairly narrow one that it will be easier to get younger men and women into the House of Lords. However, this is largely a technical matter. The White Paper looked at it in one way, but it can be looked at in another. If this proposition commends itself to the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ought to be willing to accept it.

It might, however, affect some of the narrow aspects of the bargain which has been entered into by the two Front Benches. The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that the White Paper represented the bargain. If that is so, a bargain of that size and complexity might be very difficult to renegotiate. If that proved to be the case, it would mean Amendments of an extremely technical nature and, even though the end result might prove better than the proposal envisaged, it would probably not be accepted because of the difficulty of renegotiation.

We know that the two Front Benches are not enjoying a very happy relationship at present, and, bearing in mind the accusations which have been thrown out about not quite straight dealing on the matter of remuneration, it may be that even renegotiation of a comparatively modest kind, such as I have suggested, will prove impossible. If that is so, the Committee ought to know because, if we are unable to make even modest technical Amendments of this kind, not only have we become the rubber stamp to which reference has been made during our debates, but we shall not even have any influence on possible subsequent changes.

10.45 a.m.

Very frequently when we debate matters, we know that we shall be unable to influence the eventual decision. But we also know that the views expressed here may find an echo in the thinking of a Minister at some time far removed from the date of these discussions. In this case, we do not have that minor consolation which is usually afforded to us. This is an agreement between the two Front Benches, both of which are


anxious to avoid the sort of confrontation which would lead to the difficulties of renegotiation, when charges have been put forward such as those which we have heard in the course of these debates.

To return to the technical questions, one of the advantages of this sessional voting declaration is that the party balance is easier to maintain year by year. This might be thought less important than the need to change it at the end of each Parliament, because that is when big changes occur here and when similar changes should take place in the House of Lords. But big changes are likely to take place all the time. I am not thinking so much of peers who cross over, because their numbers will not necessarily be large. What we may need to take account of is the position of cross-benchers. It it very difficult to anticipate how they will act. It may be necessary to have a fair amount of leeway of the kind which would be provided by a sessional voting declaration to take account not only of the number of peers who cross over, but of the larger number of cross-benchers who might not act as one would anticipate.

There will be an acquisition of real power by a number of people who had not thought too much about politics or who, if they had, were torn between two sides so that inevitably they kept to the middle path or who felt that they should not take a definite public stand. Those attitudes are quite tenable throughout the whole of one's public life until one comes to the position of having real and genuine power. At that stage, a fence-sitting position is no longer possible. Action has to be taken, and such a position cannot be maintained for long because of the patronage which will be showered upon those on whom important public decisions will depend. We have already seen the possibility of patronage in appointments to Ministerial office. In Appendix II the hope, or even a promise, is expressed that these are likely to be increased.

There could well be further patronage in order to control the situation in the House of Lords. No Government can stand idly by when decisions of enormous importance to them are being

taken. Almost by his very nature, the Whip is forced to take positive action in such circumstances. One advantage of having a sessional voting declaration would be to take account of changes in people which are difficult to predict because of the situation in which they are placed on coming to the House of Lords, a situation which they have not experienced before. Although we can guess fairly well the way in which a number of people are likely to behave, we are often astonished by surprising behaviour in our dealings with constituents and others.

The minimum attendance requirement is arranged on a Session by Session basis. Failure to reach the minimum required drives a peer out of the House of Lords. He has to attend on one-third of the sitting days in each Session, and voting declarations covering the same period might fit in reasonably well.

A further advantage of lowering the age limit—this is an integral part of the scheme—will be, in effect, to reduce the number of years spent by peers in the House of Lords. A number of hon. Members might see that as a disadvantage, but I do not. The years spent before the age of 60 in the House of Lords are more valuable than years spent over the age of 70. If there were a number of peers spending more of their time at the lower range of these fairly advanced ages, there would be benefit to the House of Lords and, in addition, some effect in reducing the Conservative bias there. There is a correlation—I put it no higher—between age and a bias against willingness to change.

The sessional voting declaration would help in another way, by giving the possibility of continuity of experience as people move in and out during a Parliament. We see this in local government. We deny that it is right in the House of Commons, but there is no reason why we should not consider it to a more limited extent in the House of Lords.

Paragraph 48 of the White Paper tells us:
The government of the day would normally have a majority in the House of Lords of about 10 per cent. of the combined strength of the opposition parties. The distribution of seats between the opposition parties would so far as possible be determined in relation to their representation in the House of Commons and to the number of votes cast for


them in recent general elections, but it would not be related exactly to either since neither is an accurate reflection of a party's strength.

Plainly, what the Government have worked out, in conjunction with the Opposition Front Bench, is a scheme to ensure that a change of up to 20 per cent.—a 10 per cent. change with a Conservative Government with a 10 per cent. majority or vice versa, or with a Labour Government with a 10 per cent. majority or vice versa—and that would work out at about 45 Members. That is what is felt should be obtained if it is to reflect the party balance.

On the basis of figures which I have worked out, I see no great difficulty in obtaining that change-over of tenure of 45 Members over five years. It works out at nine per year.

Mr. Birch: Nine deaths?

Mr. Sheldon: Nine deaths, retirements, removals for various reasons, nine people getting tired of the work of the House of Lords—all sorts of reasons. Nine people leaving is almost a certainty if there is no remuneration. We come back to the old question of remuneration every time. If there is to be remuneration, one can argue about whether nine a year is reasonable. Without remuneration, there will be more than nine going per year. There is no question about it. Paragraph 48 of the White Paper did not need to be written, from that point of view. For one reason and another, there will inevitably be a number of people who go. It is only when we think of it in conjunction with a useful salary that the problems of topping-up begin to emerge.

Sir John Foster: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's reference to a change of Government every five years. What happens if there are three elections in the year, as there were in 1924?

Mr. Sheldon: That is a problem of which the White Paper failed to take account. These occasions tend to be rare. There will be perhaps two or three years for catching up if they are paid. But if they are not paid, so many other factors come into account that topping-up is not important. The problem will solve itself straight away, and there can be Session by Session or Parliament by Parliament adjustment.
11.0 a.m.
Whenever we find something in the White Paper which does not ring true the reason is that the investigation reported in the White Paper has been carried out implicitly with the idea of a salary in mind and trying to work out the reactions of people who already receive a considerable salary. Everything in the White Paper is based on that. Therefore, when the Prime Minister says, "We have dropped this as a matter on which we could not agree", he is saying that the whole of the White Paper should be rewritten because the cornerstone on which it is erected has been removed.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to misquote the Prime Minister. He did not say that it was dropped. He said that it should be dropped for the moment. That is a vital difference. Perhaps it is not politic for the Prime Minister to do this at the moment. My hon. Friend may not have intended to do so, but he inferred that the Prime Minister had dropped the idea completely.

Mr. Sheldon: This cornerstone of the White Paper has been dropped for the time being. It is no use coming back to the edifice and saying, "When it is all built and the Bill has been passed we will fit in the cornerstone in a few years' time." That is nonsense. The scheme is built on that cornerstone which is implicit in the White Paper and the Bill.
Not only are we back to discussing remuneration, but it is inextricably interwoven with composition and with powers. I hope that sooner or later, and perhaps on Report, arrangements will be made so that we may consider again the crucial question of remuneration, because it has not been adequately examined. So central is it to the structure that a full debate is required again to understand the implications of remuneration. Certainly, we shall need to return to this matter on Report. A much fuller debate than we had last night is necessary.

[Mr. ARTHUR PROBERT in the Chair]

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has, as usual, brought a cool and clear logic to bear on the problems which hour after hour, day after day, the Committee is


asked to examine without sleep or rest. The Committee becomes more and more indebted to him for his critical analyses of the Bill, and his performance this morning has been no exception.
It is right that I should refer to the Amendment in my name which proposes that the voting declaration should last for ever. To this extent, I am at variance with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who wants to make the voting declaration last for one Session only. We have before us three possibilities—for ever, for a Parliament, or for a Session. The suggestion that it should last for a Parliament is that of the Government. The right to be a voting peer is for the duration of that peer's life until he reaches 72. It is very important that we should stress that this concerns the peer who will have the right to vote and to be summoned by the writ until such time as he dies, retires or reaches the age of 72. I do not like the words in the Bill because they imply that the voting declaration is available to be given each Parliament and, therefore, cannot be given at the whim of somebody or persons unknown.
I know that the intention of the Bill is not as I read it. The White Paper states:
… once he possesses these rights he is entitled to a seat in Parliament and to receive a new writ of summons for each parliament for the remainder of his life-time,
That is subject to the qualification that they would be expected to give a "substantial part of their time to the business of the House and would be subject to certain minimum conditions of attendance and to a" specified age of retirement. "The Bill makes it clear that a voting declaration is a right for life which peers who receive it will possess. But it seems to be contradictory that the peers will have to place a voting declaration in the Lord Chancellor's office for each Parliament. This is totally unnecessary. Once one is a voting peer, one should remain a voting peer until one is dead.
I do not accept the two qualifications. I do not accept the qualification of age. I do not believe that there should be an age qualification on membership. I do not accept the qualification of attendance. It is totally wrong that there should be any counting of attendances which Members of the House of Commons do

not have to suffer. If the age and attendance qualifications are removed, the only way in which a peer can be removed is by his death.
A defect in the Bill is this. A voting peer should be able to disclaim his voting membership at will. We in the House of Commons can disclaim our membership by applying for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, or, I believe, the Manor of Northcote.

Mr. John Hall: I believe that my hon. Friend means the Manor of Northstead.

Mr. Ridley: These are places which I hope never to visit—at any rate, for a few more years.

Mr. Paget: Clause 3(4) seems to deal with this point. It reads:
A voting declaration deposited by a peer in respect of any Parliament may at any time be withdrawn by notice in writing given by him to the Lord Chancellor".
Would not that have the same effect as an application for the Chiltern Hundreds?

Mr. Ridley: I am always impressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman's perspicacity. I confess that I had my mind fixed on Clause 1(4), whereby the holder of a hereditary peerage would have the right to disclaim his membership of the House of Lords within a year of the coming into force of the Act. However, I am glad to see that my point is met by the subsection to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, and my thanks go to him. It shows what a service the hon. and learned Gentleman gives to us. We are glad that he has not had to go to Northampton, as he threatened to do earlier.
We now reach the position, which is the right one, that a peer who is made a voting peer remains so until he dies or voluntarily disclaims. This should be the position, and this is the reason for my Amendment including the words "for ever". It takes away any shadow of doubt that the voting declaration is something which can be bargained for, bludgeoned over or in any way used to browbeat the independence of the peer. Our discussion in Committee has made it clear that there are enough strings, constraints and shackles even on voting peers without adding any more.
The defect in the scheme which I think all hon. Gentlemen who oppose it unite in condemning is that the voting peers will be creatures of one party or another. If there is any question of their licence running out or of their being able to be abused, we must put as our first priority the insistence that the licence to vote should be for ever. May I instance this phenomenon by referring to other Amendments on the Notice Paper in my name, whereby I attempt to call the voting declaration a dog licence. This is all too relevant when we remember the Prime Minister's speech to the Labour Party on 2nd March, 1967, when the full duty was demanded of those who had the party licence to be members of the Labour Party.
By quoting some of the words used, I hope to bring home the vital importance of protecting the voting peers from the influences, pressures, blandishments and bullying which the Prime Minister used on his hon. Friends on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said this:
All I say is watch it. Every dog is allowed one bite, but a different view is taken of a dog that goes on biting all the time. If there are doubts that the dog is biting not because of the dictates of conscience, but because he is considered vicious, then things happen to that dog. He may not get his licence renewed when it falls due.
The crime that that dog is committing is voting according to what he thinks right and not following the party ticket. This is explained later, as follows:
What has happened this week is one more incident in the problems of a governing party. All of us, even the small minority who may have nostalgia for the halcyon days of opposition, want this party to go on governing. If they do not, they should not be here, because the people who sent them here and worked hard a year ago in rain and snow want this party to go on governing. It is a question of trust. If you do not trust the Government you have a duty to say so, and say it here, not mutter it in the tea room nor say it in the daily newspaper. Because the party in the country trusts us and supports us, I say to the party, 'Stop talking defeatism'.
That shows the strength of the blandishments, the attack and the pressure which a party leader can put upon his nominees, even in the House of Commons; and hon. Members have a vastly greater degree of independence than voting peers in another place will ever have. They owe their presence here more to the electorate and to their party backers in their constituencies than to

any selection by the Prime Minister. If that whole concept of a dog licence, a licence to be a member of the party and troop through the Lobby——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Probert): Order. I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Amendment on which he appears to be speaking has not been called. I can understand that he is trying to include discussion of this Amendment with the Amendments which have been called, but I ask him to restrict his comments to the Amendment which has been chosen.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: I am sure, Mr. Probert, that it has not escaped your notice that on Clauses 1 and 2 we have not been able to discuss the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I had hoped that in discussing Clause 3 there would be a little tolerance from the Chair towards hon. Members digressing, since the Government, on Clause 1 and on Clause 2, have not allowed discussion on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot discuss the question of Clauses 1 and 2. I am concerned with the Amendments which have been chosen. I am sure that those who have been listening to the last few moments will agree with me that the Chair has been tolerant to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to be intolerant, but I ask him not to make use of the Amendments which have been chosen to discuss Amendments which have not been chosen.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Ridley: I concede that I was teetering on the brink of being out of order in pursuing the question of dog licences further, and I will not do so. I was doing so not to talk about the Amendment, but to illustrate the vital importance of securing the maximum amount of independence from the party machine once a peer has been nominated.
To take any suggestion of party politics out of what I have said, may I quote what Disraeli is alleged to have said to Bulwer Lytton, who was causing trouble in his Cabinet:
Damn your principles. Stick to your party.
These are the sort of pressures we mean when we speak of the independence of future Members of another place.
I believe that the voting declaration should be for life. Once it is received, it can either be renounced by the holder or it is to be for ever, and I see no need to interrupt it each Session or each Parliament. It should be a document which cannot be taken away from a peer by any means, fair or foul, unless he voluntarily relinquishes it.
This means that once a peer is appointed—by what murky means and as a result of whatsoever deal as a reward for whatsoever service we cannot say, we will never know—if he is prepared to stand up and speak his mind nothing can be done to harm him.
With these two qualifications of the age limit and the attendance record, one could see how he might be trapped. There might be a plot to make sure that he has been in attendance just one day short of the one-third of the sitting days during which he needs to attend and, on false information, he might be dissuaded from attending on that day which is necessary to enable him to make up his quota. There may be a plot of that sort because he has been showing independence, abusing his dog licence or kicking over the traces. We must guarantee his survival as an independent and free-thinking Member of the Upper House once he is made a Member of it.

Mr. Paget: Can one describe him as a free-thinking, independent Member of the Upper House when he has been appointed, unpaid, to support either the Government or the Opposition? The two things are contradictions in terms.

Mr. Ridley: Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman is right, but I thought that I had qualified what I was saying by admitting his point at the time of appointment. But there are those who, having sold themselves, will struggle back to regain at least a small proportion of their integrity. All I seek to do is to make it possible for them to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. Even 4½ guineas a day might become worth quite a lot. As tax-free expenses in the hands of a very rich man, it may well be worth more than £4,000 a year taxed. So we are not in a position to neglect even that small element of pay; but I must not stray over that ground again.
I accept that independence of mind is not something that will be found in our new-found Upper House. On the other hand, I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will agree that this is something that we should strive to obtain, as far as possible, in relation to peers who find their way into the other House.
I have been doing my sums, and I want to refer to the question of topping up——

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order. It is with great regret, Mr. Probert, that I call attention to the fact that fewer than 40 hon. Members are present.

The Temporary Chairman: Under Standing Order No. 30 it is not in order to call a Count now.

Mr. Ridley: I was going to discuss the question of topping up. It would seem that we can do these sums in almost any way we like. The variable in all the calculations——

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order. I do not want to delay the Committee, Mr. Probert, but I did not hear what happened. Did I understand you to say that we cannot call a Count in the morning? I should like to get the position clear.

The Temporary Chairman: Under Standing Order No. 30:
The House shall not be counted on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays between half-past seven and half-past eight of the clock or after ten of the clock, but if on a division taken on any 'business between half-past seven and half-past eight of the clock
and so on.

Mr. John Hay: Would you mind reading out the remainder of that Standing Order, Mr. Probert? We are still in the sitting which commenced yesterday afternoon. We have not adjourned or suspended the sitting.

The Temporary Chairman: The Standing Order says clearly that the House shall not be counted between half-past seven and half-past eight o'clock or after ten o'clock—and it is after ten o'clock last night.

Mr. Ridley: I had better start my sentence again. We get mixed up in doing


the mathematical exercise upon which I am attempting to embark in respect of the topping up. The result of this mathematical exercise depends on the age of the peer at the time of his creation; the frequency with which general elections occur—and, therefore, the frequency of changes of Government—and the total number of Members of the other House. I have done many sums on my slide rule at weekends and have taken a very young age for the average at the time of creation. Every time it is necessary to top up in order to swing the balance in favour of the new Government we shall have to create many extra peers, and if they are fairly young creations they will not die very quickly.
All the calculations of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) were based on a death rate of nine voting peers a year. That death rate will occur only if peers are relatively elderly at the time of their creation. Anyway, in the initial ageing period, if the peers are not senile when they are appointed there will be some time during which the number of Members in the other House will grow and grow and grow. I have worked it out that if this process goes on until the year 2000, with a frequency of general elections of about 3½ears, we shall end up with about 2,500 peers on the basis that their average age at the time of creation is 40.
If we use different basic figures—if we say that the average age at creation is 45 or 50—we reduce the number. If, on the other hand, the frequency of general elections is changed, the number will be increased or decreased accordingly.

Sir J. Foster: How often has my hon. Friend presumed a change of Government?

Mr. Ridley: I have taken it at 3½ years. That was the assumption that I fed into my machine, but that is not statistically accurate. It seems that we shall need a computer in the Committee to feed in all the different possible solutions to the problem in order to find out how many Members there will be. The residual or this process is the size of the Upper House. That depends on the frequency of general elections, the average age and life span of creations, and the number who disclaim or die.

Sir J. Foster: And the defeat of the Government.

Mr. Ridley: I should have referred to the rate of change of Governments. It is, therefore, very strange that the size of the Chamber should vary from Parliament to Parliament, depending on completely haphazard factors, such as the rate of change of Government, the average age of creations, and the average life span of peers. If life is not too arduous in the other place its Members will presumably live much longer than we do. We are worried to note how the average life span of Members of this House appears to be dropping. After the treatment that we have been subjected to in the last 24 hours it is no surprise.
I have sat here for hour after hour, in debate after debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) has had time for a bath and a shave, but I have not even had time for a bath. No wonder Members of Parliament are declining in health—but that has nothing to do with the Bill. If their noble Lords find that they thrive in the conditions existing along the corridor—if they find that they can grow old with dignity and good health—there might be a vastly expanding other place. How can we conceive of the success of a scheme in circumstances in which the size of the other Chamber is completely beyond our control? If the Bill is operated according to the spirit of the bargain between both sides of the Committee, and if the membership of the other place is increased according to the formula on each change of Government, we might well end up with a need to rebuild the other place on an enormous scale. We might have to take the Albert Hall for a site for the other place.
This whole series of difficulties is a new one which the Committee will have to explore in detail. I have second-class honours moderations in mathematics, and I suggest that the mathematics of the matter will be too complicated for hon. Members to do off the cuff. They will need some professional help. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary and I hope that he will be able to explain the exact calculations on which the Government plan is based, and will place his figures before the Committee. Whether he uses Taylor's theorem or one of the more advanced


differential calculi systems for assessing the number of seats to be provided in another place I do not know, but this is Government planning, and the Ministry of Works takes at least 10 years to build anything, so it will need to be informed of the number of peers to be provided for 10 years hence.
I suggest that this is a crazy system. We have no knowledge of the size of the other Chamber after a certain period. We have launched this monster upon the world but whether we shall have 2,100 peers or 50 peers depends on a whole series of accidents which may or may not break the way the Government expect. My mathematics and assumptions may be wrong, but nobody can tell what the right answer will be.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member claims to be a mathematical expert, or at least that he is good at mathematics. Can he explain what will happen if the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists obtain a large representation at the next election? How will they be affected? Could they control the Lords?

Mr. Ridley: They were not parties to the bargain. They did not come in when the cake was carved up. They carved it up in the ratio of 105 to the government party, 80 to the main opposition party and 15 to the Liberals. But there is no room there for Welsh or Scottish nationalists, flat earthers, do-gooders or Communists——

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Surely, the point is not whether they were or were not parties to the bargain, but that at the moment they are not parties as such in the House of Commons, being represented by one representative in each case.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Ridley: This makes the point. The Welsh Nationalists might get 100,000 votes and the Scottish Nationalists 1 million votes, but they would have only one or two seats, as at present. Yet this will be used to reduce their seats in another place, because no one here will have a big enough foot in the door to create peers to match their representation in the country.
The minority parties have always argued for some form of proportional

representation because they claim that our system gives all the advantage to the big parties and none to the minority parties, who get far fewer seats than their voting strength demands. I support the present system, but if there is to be a second Chamber there is a strong case for having a different representation, giving more to minority parties than we—rightly, I think—give in this Chamber.
Therefore, the reverse will happen, because all the nominations will be based on the power of creation of the two big parties and, for some extraordinary reason, the Liberals too, although why they should have 15 seats when they have only 12 Members in the House beats me.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Might I refer the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) to the White Paper, from which it appears that what he said is not the Government's intention? The White Paper clearly says:
… distribution of seats between the opposition parties would so far as possible be determined in relation to their representation in the House of Commons and to the number of votes cast for them in recent general elections, but it would not be related exactly to either, since neither is an accurate reflection of a party's strength.
Would my hon. Friend comment on that passage?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I called Mr. Ridley to speak, and he has the floor at the moment.

Mr. Ridley: I was delighted to give way to my hon. Friend, Mr. Probert. I am prepared to be used as an "in-off" cushion. When, answering the Under-Secretary, I said that the representation of minority parties in another place would be smaller than it should be, I saw the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) nodding. He may have been nodding at the development of my argument, rather than its Tightness, but I did not see him spring to his feet to contradict me.
I think that this will be the case. After all, the power exists to put all the creations in the hands of the big parties and it is these small minority parties which cause the most irritation to the big parties. The Welsh and Scottish Nationalists cause intense irritation to both my right hon. Friends and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front


Bench because they are the greatest potential threats. The big battalions of Conservative and Labour seats are relatively safe, and we know that there will not be much change between our own bases, but when it comes to these unknown elements, individuals are threatened, because Welsh nationalists can sometimes overturn a majority of 24,000, taking everybody by surprise. These parties are a far greater threat than the opposing main parties.
When we come to parties which we consider to be near-subversive, the situation becomes more difficult still. The Communist Party, for instance, is not banned in this country, but there is a healthy condemnation of Communists. As I have said previously on this Bill, no Communist has managed to find his way into either House of Parliament except by inheriting a hereditary peerage—[Interruption] I mean at the present time.

Mr. Hay: I was going to say that in the past 20 years we have had a number of Communists in the House from time to time, although not sitting in this House under that label.

[Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

Mr. Ridley: But I am addressing myself much more to the declared member of a minority party. My only proposition is that only a declared Communist——

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Brewis. Is not that observation of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) a reflection upon the honour of hon. Members? That suggestion, that people may have been here under false colours, Communists pretending to belong to another party, seems to me a very serious allegation. If it is made, names should be given and the matter referred to the Committee of Privileges.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): I must apologise to the House, but I did not hear the remark. However, judging from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, it does sound to have been out of order.

Mr. Hay: If I said anything out of order, Mr. Brewis, I unreservedly withdraw it, but I do not think that I went so far as the hon. and learned Member

for Northampton (Mr. Paget) suggested——

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Further to that point of order. My right hon. Friend, surely, was not accusing the other side of having Communists: what he meant to say and what we mean and what is well known to everyone in the country is that at least 50 per cent. are fellow travellers, and what are they?

Mr. Ridley: I do not want to enter into this part of the debate. I was merely putting the proposition, which is a matter of fact, that the only declared Communist in either House of Parliament at present is Lord Milford, who is my godfather, who got into Parliament by inheriting a peerage. My question for the Solicitor-General is: would he still get in there if we had the sort of House of Lords which the Government are trying to create?
Let us take another sort of party, the Paisleyites in Northern Ireland, or people who exist to promulgate racial minorities, or Scientologists with views obnoxious to nearly every one in the House. They may be obnoxious to us all, but so long as their organisations are not proscribed or prevented by the law, who are we to say that they should not have representation either in this House or in the other? I can foresee an occasion arising when the two party leaders, supported no doubt by the jackal who has secured a slice of the cake for the Liberal Party, would exclude all such people from having a chance of sitting in the House of Lords, although they had support on a fairly massive scale, perhaps regional, perhaps confined to Northern Ireland or some other part of the kingdom. This is a terrible danger, to which my hon. Friend is right to draw my attention.

Mr. Iremonger: Should my hon. Friend not point out in that context that we have not heard this protest from the Liberal Party? They have taken their 15 seats, and they know perfectly well that any moral claim they have to them applies a fortiori to the people to whom he is referring. They are not even here to listen to what he is saying.

Mr. Ridley: I imagine that some of them are trying on their ermines to see if they fit, since they have 15 seats for


12 of them, whereas there are only 105 seats for 350 members of the Labour Party——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is it not possible that if, say, the Scottish nationalists got 12 seats at the next election they could claim the same as the Liberals and get 15 seats in the other place? No doubt the Government of the day would be only too pleased to arrange it for them.

Mr. Ridley: I would entirely support the hon. Gentleman if that were built into the Bill, if there were a complicated formula which was weighted partly by votes cast in the country, partly by seats obtained and partly by other qualifications and criteria. The danger, however, is that it is all left to the two party leaders and is not put into the Bill in any sort of formula, and we, therefore, cannot be certain that this will happen.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Brewis. Is it in order for the Opposition Chief Whip to be conducting a committee meeting? Will he please tell the Committee what is being said, so that we may all know, or should the Committee adjourn so that we can meet outside to know what is happening?

The Temporary Chairman: I was perfectly able to hear what was being said by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). There was a lot less noise in the Chamber than on many occasions during yesterday evening.

Mr. Ridley: As I, too, want to hear what is being said, I shall conclude my speech. Having urged the Amendment with all the power and eloquence at my command, I resume my seat.

Mr. Paget: If I may make a passing reference to the point of order which has just been raised, there is a slight difficulty in addressing the Committee during the session of a committee within a Committee. None the less, it is a difficulty with which I shall put up, as I feel that the committee within the Committee is probably doing a much more useful job than we are, because I hope that it is making arrangements to bring this debate to a conclusion to allow us to get on with different but not unimportant issues.
With a normal Bill this would be a rather narrow Amendment dealing with a small piece of machinery, but this is a rather peculiar Bill, because it is from the machinery that we have to deduce the principle. We are not told what the Bill is meant to do; we are not told how many peers there are to be; we are not told how they are to be remunerated; we are not told whether it is to be a House of paid professionals or transient amateurs. All this we have to guess from the machinery, and one has to consider the machinery and draw one's conclusions.
Here is a piece of machinery which is apparently to implement the intention which is adumbrated but not defined in paragraph 12 of the new Schedule suggested by Amendment No. 58:
The government of the day would normally have a majority in the House of Lords of about 10 per cent. of the combined strength of the opposition parties. The distribution of the seats between the opposition parties would so far as possible be determined in relation to their representation in the House of Commons and to the number of votes cast for them in recent general elections, but it would not be related exactly to either since neither is an accurate reflection of a party's strength. Assuming a total voting House of 230, the figures which would be appropriate in the present parliament are: government 105, main opposition party 80, other opposition parties 15 and cross benchers 30 (these figures again exclude law lords and bishops). If the total membership were more than 230 the party representation would be increased in proportion. The figure for particular parties would naturally be capable of being varied from time to time to reflect changes in their relative strength and to take account of the emergence of any new parties.
That deals with the emergence of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists.
This is a second aspect of the reformed House which the proposed Committee might keep under review.
That being the intended machinery, what kind of a House will the Clause work on? The Clause says:
A peer of first creation shall be qualified as a voting peer in any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act if he has deposited with the Lord Chancellor in respect of that Parliament a voting declaration (that is, a declaration in writing that he wishes to be so qualified), and that declaration is for the time being in force.
One conceives a situation in which one starts with 105 peers committed to the Government, 80 committed to the Conservatives, 15 plus or minus committed


to the Liberals and 30 committed to the most difficult of all commitments—neutrality.
11.45 a.m.
If it were an unpaid House, this might be a workable solution within manageable figures, because the usual channels might get to work and say, "We have lost this election and we shall be in opposition and perhaps you would like to take it a little more quietly and perhaps not make a declaration in the new Parliament". But if it is to be a paid House, it is very much more difficult to say, "You are one of the people who should volunteer not to have pay for this period".
There is also keeping the balance and totting up. What sort of age is this kind of Parliament to have? If peers were to be appointed at the age of 40, how would it be known that they would stay of their persuasion for 30 years? A man may be bought for a limited period, but to buy a chap, particularly for the extraordinary commitment of neutrality, and to require that for 30 years he should not only start off as a man without political opinions but fail to pick up a political opinion when engaged in politics during that period is something which I should have thought would stretch the imagination of even the present Government.

Mr. Iremonger: They are allowed to pick them up as long as they start without them and pick up different ones. It is consistency that they are not allowed to have. They must not be reliable. They must have no principles.

Mr. Paget: One may have the neutral man distinguished in breeding cattle, in making films, in performing in plays, or possessing any of the wide distinctions which may be brought to ornament another place, who in that kind of life has not formed any consistent views as to the way in which his country should be. If he is appointed at 70 there may be a reasonable prospect that he will stay that way for two years. But if one appoints him at 40 and leaves him 32 years in which he is not just breeding cattle, painting pictures, performing on the stage, giving charming talks on the wireless, or even writing novels about the corridors of power—if he is actually in the corridors of power during that time,

is it conceivable that he can continue to be inconsistent and uncommitted for 32 years? It looks to me as though that kind of machinery commits one initially to very old men. On that basis, one does not really want to be bothered with them for more than one Parliament and one will be looking to those who are just under 72, so that they will at least acquire their disqualification during that Parliament, and one will have a clean sheet when one comes to the next.
I do not know whether that is a desirable sort of Chamber. It is indeed a council of the elders of the tribe, and such a council, as those who have read "The Golden Bough" and have been interested in tribal societies have observed, is always a committee for avoiding change. It is not a decision-making but a decision-avoiding committee. If one wants a House of Lords whose function shall be to look at the rash decisions taken here and to see how their implementation can be avoided, one begins to see the shape of this and the attraction of the arrangement for the vacant Front Bench opposite. Here is a solid reason why the Conservative Party should agree to the arrangement, but I do not know that it is one which would appeal immediately to me or my hon. Friends.
There is a curious feature in the rather delicate balance that must be maintained. The Bill has a rather ingenious method of providing that once a noble Lord has made his declaration he must either attend as a voting peer or bring himself into one of the exceptions, which would include being present in a mental institution. If he goes insane—and we are told how terribly alarming the mental illness figures are—he comes within Clause 4(2)(b), which provides that
… a peer who, at any time during the Session, is absent with the leave of the House on account of ill-health…
shall not be disqualified. A peer can have a stroke, or become insane. There was one tragic instance of a motor accident to a Member of the other House, a very charming and brilliant man whom I used to know, who was unconscious for 2½ years. These are the terrible kinds of physical tragedies that can occur. Yet here we have a machinery which precisely provides that people to whom this sort of thing has happened shall hold one of


these essential seats within the balance during a whole Parliament. Why?

Sir J. Foster: Could not one get over that by refusing the leave of the House to such a peer?

Mr. Paget: It would be a very unkind House that did so. I do not think that it is in the atmosphere of our proceedings. I presume that that sort of leave is given automatically, that someone says, "Our friend Lord So-and-So has had a terribly bad accident and will not be able to come." Nobody would dream of refusing absence for that. One does not know how long or serious this sort of thing will be. Once the leave has been given, I do not see any machinery for withdrawing it.
The contemplation is that this leave shall be available to the sick. One cannot contemplate another place deciding on the quality of the sickness and saying, "Poor old Jones is ill, but we will not give him leave because it is in his head, you know." We do not work like that, and I am thankful that we do not, because we should be a brutal society if we did. Members of this sort of Chamber—of the other place perhaps even more than ours—are involved with a commitment of kindness to each other. Here we find a great commitment of kindness.
Some of us can remember an instance not many months ago of great kindness shown in the House because Members felt that perhaps the Member concerned was not at fault. This kind of thing will apply everywhere else.
If one wants this kind of balance to work, why should not the declaration be made each Session? If a man is absent from a Session for a good reason it can be renewed in the following Session. There is nothing to prevent that. Even if one thoroughly dislikes the Bill, as I do, even if one feels, that this is quite the wrong way to conduct affairs, when one is looking to the machinery parts of the Bill one should look to something that makes sense instead of something that does not.

Miss J. M. Quennell: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman also agree that there seems to be something strangely anomalous about this Chamber considering the provisions for another House, and considering provisions

in which leave of absence has to be granted in another House, when no such provision applies here? Hon. Members do not have to attend this Chamber. If they do not, there is nothing this Chamber can do about it.
12 noon.

Mr. Paget: That is the subject of another Amendment, which, I understand, is not being called. It raises a matter of considerable principle, and, therefore, on this occasion at least, we should be able to discuss it on the Motion that the Clause stand part, because the Standing Order provides only for the skipping of a "Clause stand part" debate when the principles involved in the Clause have been adequately discussed on the Amendments. Here, however, we have two narrow Amendments which do not include or cover the important point of principle touched on by other Amendments which are unselected. Doubtless, therefore, we shall be given the opportunity for a "Clause stand part" debate. It would be contrary to Standing Orders if we were not.

Mr. Farr: So far we have not had a discussion on "Clause 1 stand part" or on "Clause 2 stand part". Is it not highly unlikely that we shall be able to have a discussion on "Clause 3 stand part"?

Mr. Paget: But that comment is not really fair on the decisions which have been taken. There were wide Amendments down to Clauses 1 and 2. It was at least very arguable from the Chair that the principles involved had been discussed on the Amendment, but no one can argue that in the case of Clause 3. The other and broad question of principle raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) is not discussable now since it and other aspects are covered by Amendments which have not been selected. They are obviously different from those involved in the Amendments which have been selected. So I believe that the decision on this Clause must be different from the one given on the previous two. I am sure, Mr. Brewis, that you will agree with me on that.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman will see in due course.

Mr. Paget: I turn to another aspect which worries me, and this is very much a question of procedure. I assume that the Committee will accept Amendment No. 20 because it would be a positive improvsment. I am, therefore, wondering what is to happen to the others of the Amendments which we are allowed to discuss apparently but not to vote on. Subsection (2) would read as follows if amended by Amendment No. 20:
A voting declaration duly deposited in accordance with this section shall, unless previously withdrawn, continue in force until the end of each session of the Parliament to which in relates.
Assuming that we have made that change, we turn to subsection (3), which says:
A voting declaration in respect of any Parliament summoned after such date as Her Majesty may prescribe by Order in Council (being an Order of which a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House) shall not be deposited by a peer who had attained the age of sevenly-two years before the dissolution of the last previous Parliament.
At that point, the words in subsection (3)
… in respect of any Parliament…
will not make sense, because the declaration required by subsection (2) will be in respect not of a Parliament but of a Session. Subsection (3), will, therefore, be referring to a declaration that cannot be made. So surely there must be an alteration also to subsection (3), and how are we to make it unless the question is put on appropriate Amendments? I remind the Committee again of the final words of subsection (3),
… before the dissolution of the last previous Parliament.
Would it really be consistent, if the declarations were sessional, that the age limit should be by Parliament? This is the sort of question we have to put.
There is a further consequential and necessary amendment—No. 116, in page 3, line 30, leave out second 'a' and insert 'any session of'. This relates to subsection (4), which begins:
A voting declaration in respect of a Parliament"—
which one. finds in subsection (4)—
shall not be deposited by any peer after the end of the period of one month from the issue of the writ summoning him to attend the House in that Parliament, or such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.

Once again, if we pass Amendment No. 20, the declaration will be in respect not of a Parliament but of a session.

Mr. Kirk: The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that if we make this Amendment we shall be entitled to a Report stage, which I suspect the Government are trying to avoid. We could, however, make the consequential Amendments on Report.

Mr. Paget: This is a rather clumsy way of doing it. We are trying to put this in order, and all I am saying, with great respect to the Chair, is that, whilst it may be reasonable to allow a Division on Amendment No. 20, if that Amendment falls, the others fall with it. For the Chair to commit itself in advance to saying, "We will not retain the power to include necessary consequential Amendments" seems to me quite wrong and unnecessary. It has notified us as a matter of convenience of the Amendments it proposes to call. There is nothing to prevent the Chair from making a different decision when the time comes.
Subject to this eminently sensible and reasonable Amendment being accepted, which is purely a matter of machinery, I feel that we should have the assurance that the Chair will consider the consequential Amendments flowing therefrom, which by then will have been discussed.

Sir J. Foster: But will not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that when an anti-Government Amendment is accepted or carried it is difficult for the amateur draftsman to go through the Bill and make all the consequential Amendments? Is not the practice that when an Amendment is accepted or carried the Government draftsman then makes all the consequential Amendments? It would be very inconvenient to have to pick out a few consequential Amendments and vote on them. Suppose a vote went the other way? It would make the House look ridiculous. The practice surely is that once the main Amendment is carried the Government draftsman goes through the consequential process. Imagine the situation that might arise where consequential Amendments were not carried because 12 hon. Members had gone out to dinner.

Mr. Paget: I can only say to the hon. and learned Gentleman, not for the first time during the long period in which we have both been in the House,, that I am deeply impressed by his Parliamentary wisdom. I think that he is right, and I am wrong. I withdraw the remarks that I made.

Mr. Iremonger: With reference to earlier observations about the conduct of proceedings, perhaps I might refer fleetingly to the fact that I have been in my place for 17 hours except for very brief periods of absence and, that, owing to the tactics of the Government Whips, this is the first time that I have been able to catch the eye of the Chair on anything but a procedural point.
I am particularly glad, therefore, to follow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and very pleased that he has accepted with good grace the point put to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster).
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we are not told what the House of Lords which the Bill seeks to create is supposed to do. That is true, but we know already what it is supposed to do. Its purpose is to transform Parliament into the tool and servant of the Government. That is made clear, to anyone who is not satisfied merely to infer it, in the Preamble where mention is made of maintaining "a proper balance". A proper balance is supposed to be the sort of balance which ensures the Government getting a majority, which seems to me to be about the most improper balance to envisage. It is one which we have to put up with here, in the nature of things, but we should not tolerate it in the Upper House.
12.15 p.m.
The object and purpose of the other place is to be a kind of public relations organisation for bureaucracy, and that is why I am against the Bill. I can see the tactical merit of the Committee accepting these Amendments, but I am against them because they improve the Bill from the point of view of its promoters. However, if they were carried, it would mean having to have a Report stage, and I can see some merit in that.
Apart from the reference that I have made to the Preamble, the object of the

Bill is nowhere more clear than in this Clause. The intention of the sessional voting declaration which prospective peers are supposed to make is to enable the Prime Minister and the Government of the day to keep control of their party stooges in the new House, topping them up in the interests of the Government if any of the dog bites the hand that feeds it and changes its opinion or forms an opinion which it had undertaken not to acquire on being admitted to the kennel.
The object of the age limit is to stop unreliable peers who may have disappointed the Government who created them from clinging to a well paid sinecure. The concept of the Bill is objectionable. It is anathema to any Parliamentarian and a bureaucrat's dream.
I do not think that the objects which are superficially sought to be achieved by this Clause, namely, to ensure that the peers are able to do a lot of work, are ones which are proper to try and achieve for the Upper House. There is no point in an Upper House doing any work. That is not its function. It does very little work now, as anyone looking at Lords Amendments knows. The other place considers that it has had a series of late nights if it rises at 6.15 p.m. three days a week. However, its job is not to do work. Its job is, capriciously and abitrarily, to obstruct the Government when it sees fit.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bring his argument round to the sessional voting declaration?

Mr. Iremonger: Mr. Brewis, the object of this Clause is to produce fit men who will support the Government. I am against any Amendment which improves the Clause to that end, because I want to see an Upper House composed of old men who will obstruct the Government.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: In the event of a Conservative House of Commons, is the hon. Gentleman agreeable to having a Labour House of Lords, and, with a Labour House of Commons, a Conservative House of Lords?

Mr. Iremonger: I will come to the deeper philosophical implications of this doctrine in a moment. At present, I am dealing with the superficial implications of it.
The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the real point of the Clause. The function of an Upper House, which this Clause will thwart and which acceptance of these Amendments would thwart even more, is to obstruct the Government. There is nothing undemocratic or unprogressive in that. If the Government and the House of Commons do not like their will being obstructed by a House of Lords with a conservative tendency, they have their remedy. If the House of Lords has a delaying power of two years, which it should have, and the will of this House is obstructed within the last two years of Parliament, the Government need not complain. They can like it or lump it. Or, if they are not prepared to do that, they have a simple recourse, namely, to put themselves to the people. They can dissolve Parliament and have a general election. What could be more democratic and progressive than that?
The present Government, here against the will of the people, are neither democratic nor progressive. If we had a House of Lords with power to chuck out the Bill and put the option to the Government of doing without it or going to the country, that would be a great deal more democratic and progressive.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I have already reminded the hon. Gentleman that he must come to the matter of the Amendments. This is not yet a debate on the Clause as a whole.

Mr. Iremonger: I am against the Amendments for the reason that they would make the Clause even stronger in promoting that undesirable constitutional situation. Perhaps I had better leave it there, Mr. Brewis, without going further into the principle that a second Chamber, if it is to have a function, must be a brake and not an accelerator. It is no use saying that the Clause is good because it makes the other House a better accelerator. It is a bad Clause. We want to improve the brake.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): In moving the Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) observed that no great principle was involved. He did not underestimate any more than I do its importance, but he put it forward largely as a technical matter. I agree with that view of the Amendment, and

at this stage in the debate I consider it entirely upon its merits and without any of the restraints and inhibitions which have been referred to as, perhaps, operating in these matters as the consequence of a bargain or compact.
Considering the Amendment in that fashion, I invite the Committee to conclude that the Bill in this respect at least is better left as it is and that the Amendment should be rejected. If I have understood him aright, my hon. Friend has two separate intentions. To some extent, they overlap, but there are two threads in his proposals, and it is right to consider each of them. I hope I put it fairly when I say that part of his purpose is to require that voting peers should make their declaration for a Session at a time instead of for a Parliament at a time. Apart from the effect which would flow from such a change upon other matters, upon composition and the age of peers, my hon. Friend regards that as an improvement considered entirely by itself.
A change of that kind, however, is inherently open to objection. It has been said that, with voting declarations on a Sessional basis, it would be much easier than under the method proposed in the Bill to keep the composition of the Upper House in closer relation, as is the purpose and plan of the Bill, with the balance of the parties as the history of Parliament proceeds. Theoretically, perhaps, there could be some force in that, but it is too theoretical a concept. It involves the concept of narrow and meticulous balance and adjustment in the course of a Parliament which is not appropriate for the objects we have in mind. The beginning and end of a Parliament represent what for practical purposes, is the relevant climacteric in this manner, the relevant, convenient, appropriate and businesslike point in the development of affairs at which the endeavour should be made to determine the relationship of the parties in the Upper House.
The consequence of the Amendment to require that voting peers should make their declaration for a Session at a time would be to remove the only sanction at present in the Bill against the voting peer who fails to meet the attendance requirement. The attendance requirement is related to minimum attendance on a


sessional basis. In passing, I point out that the consequences of the change my hon. Friend desires in this respect go rather wider than, perhaps, he has thus far recognised.

Sir J. Foster: I quite understand the argument that the Session is too short, but I have not understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's premise, which he did not elaborate, that the expiration of voting declarations at the end of a Parliament enables the question of balance to be looked into.

The Solicitor-General: I have in mind nothing more complex—I hope I am right—than that, when there is a General Election, that is the point at which the relative strengths of parties, the relevant factor in the composition of the Upper House under the agreed schemes, comes to be seen most clearly and specifically. I do not go beyond that.

Sir J. Foster: I do not see why, when that comes to be discussed at the end of a Parliament, it matters that the declarations of the voting peers have expired. They just put them in again. I do not see the Solicitor-General's point.

The Solicitor-General: My understanding is that the process described as top-ping-up deals with the situation which arises when the General Election comes.
12.30 p.m.
I turn to the other thread of argument and intention which, rightly or wrongly, I see comprised in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. He has in mind, as a byproduct of his proposal, that a peer who reaches the age of retirement should be required to retire at the end of the Session in which he reaches the age of retirement and not at the end of the Parliament. He see this as broadly having the consquence of a lower-aged peerage.

Mr. Sheldon: I wish to raise with my hon. and learned Friend a point about the basis of the White Paper, since that was founded on payment to peers. The topping-up process will be much more easily achieved as a result of the decision not to go ahead with paying peers. Would my hon. and learned Friend deal with that?

The Solicitor-General: I would not wish, on this Amendment, to get involved in the question of the relevance of remuneration.
The effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment on the ages of peers would be to spread retirements evenly throughout the Parliament and prevent the necessary grouping at the end of the Parliament. As a result it would be impossible to balance with retirements the new creations which would be needed to adjust the party balance after a change of Government. The alternative would, therefore, be to allow the voting House to run down in size towards the end of a Parliament, finishing at the end of a Parliament with a House of, say, 150, or to have a large increase above what is regarded in the White Paper as the desired number of 230 at each change of Government.
I was asked about the manner in which the age of 72 was decided. I assure the Committee that it was decided after very careful inquiries. A number of actuarial studies were carried out to test the effect on the size of a voting House of various ages of retirement, each taken with various assumptions about the frequency of changes of Government, the number of new creations for an outgoing Administration, and matters of that kind. It is very easy to make fun of this kind of actuarial exercise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is a great deal more difficult to put forward an alternative and more sensible and practicable way of proceeding.

Mr. Birch: Am I to understand that the age of 72 has nothing to do with a judgment about the competence of an average person of that age and whether he is capable of doing his job, but that mathematical juggling has produced a certain effect?

The Solicitor-General: I do not accept that account. Competence at a particular age was taken into account. The right hon. Gentleman can be confident about that.

Mr. Roebuck: Mr. Roebuck rose——

The Solicitor-General: I have a number of points to deal with.
The effect of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) would be


that a voting declaration, once deposited, would remain in force in perpetuity instead of for the duration of the Parliament. The retiring age of 72 would cease to be effective. The arguments in favour of a retiring age are well known and they have been widely canvassed. It is a matter of judgment for the Committee as to whether there should be an age limit. The Government's view is that it is desirable that there should be an age limit for voting peers.
The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would also confuse the right given to a voting peer to opt to become a nonvoting peer by not depositing a voting declaration or by withdrawing it. The procedure proposed enables a voting peer to avoid what might be thought to be the indignity of loss of voting rights by non-attendance under Clause 4.
I have put forward the grounds which I regard as justifying the view that the Amendments should be rejected on a strict basis of considering these proposals on their merits and with no other considerations in mind.

Mr. Powell: I do not know what satisfaction the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has derived from the reply of the Solicitor-General. As I apprehended it, there were two main effects which the hon. Gentleman intended and which would follow from his Amendment. I confess that, like the Solicitor-General, I find both of them less good than the effect of the Bill as it stands. One is that it would in practice reduce the upper age limit and thus make for a slightly younger House of Lords. The main thing is that it would, in effect, reduce the upper age limit.
On these Amendments, we are not discussing the substantive question whether there should be an age limit. But, as my view and that of many of my hon. Friends is that an age limit is mistaken and irrational, naturally one does not welcome an Amendment which has the effect of making that age limit rather more severe. Therefore, on that account, I am against the hon. Gentleman's intentions.
The second effect is that with sessional declaration it would be necessary to top up the membership of the House session by session, but in smaller quantities at a time. I thought that the hon. Member was arguing that, if so, possibly the scope

for an undesirable exercise, or a more massive exercise, of Government patronage would be reduced. In so far as that is the object and effect, then my sympathies are with him. However, in practice, I do not think that it is the natural casualties which will be the main cause of the topping-up process, but rather changes in political allegiance or behaviour during a Parliament, as well as changes in the balance of parties at the end of a Parliament. On balance, therefore, I feel that the Bill as it stands is somewhat preferable to the way in which the hon. Member would amend it.
However, the hon. Member did manage to extract one important point. We are learning more and more, as the Committee stage goes on, about the contents of the bargain. The hon. Member reminded the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) had described the White Paper as the bargain between the two sides. I confess that, until the Solicitor-General got up, I had assumed that a retirement age, and, indeed, this retirement age, had been part of the package which had been accepted by the various parties in both Houses.
Now, however, we learn from the Solitor-General, unless I misunderstood him, that neither the retirement age in general nor this particular retirement age was part of the agreement or the package, but was the Government's own proposal, based, as appeared from an interchange between him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), upon actuarial calculations rather than upon more solid and prudential foundations. So we have learnt something more about this strange package, bargain or understanding, and what we have learnt, apparently, is that the retirement age falls outside it.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman did not learn that from me. He misunderstood me if he thought that I said that. What I put to the Committee was that in dealing with my hon. Friend's Amendment on the retiring age I was considering the merits of the matter by themselves. I was not, in that judgment, inhibited by considerations of compact or bargain.

Mr. Powell: Either the Solicitor-General means that there is an agreement, but he ignored it in order to deal with


the Amendment on its merits, or he means that there is no agreement which would conflict with an alteration of the retirement age.
If it is the first, then the hon. and learned Gentleman is wasting the time of the Committee by arguing an Amendment upon an unreal basis, namely, that we are not inhibited by the agreement. If he means that we are not, in practice, inhibited by the agreement, he must be telling the Committee that the agreement does not lay down the retirement age. Maybe it lays down a retirement age, but I am to learn from him that the agreement does not embody a specific retirement age, and that that is the reason why we are all uninhibited in our consideration of the Amendments. If so, we can chalk it up as a slight gain in our information about the package.
As one of the Amendments in the group which we are considering relates to subsection (4), I would be obliged, although he has already spoken, if I might put two points on subsection (4) to the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. The first is little more than a drafting point. The last words of subsection (4) are:
… or such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.
As drafted, those words are ambiguous, and it is an ambiguity which ought not to be suffered to remain. One possible meaning is that the House may for special reasons allow an extended period to a particular peer. An alternative meaning is that the House for special reasons may allow an extended period generally.
I cannot see that the Clause in its present drafting makes clear which it is and, since we are giving the House a dispensing power, we ought to know whether that dispensing power is to be exercised ad hominem, in the case of a particular peer, or is to be exercised with regard to circumstances from time to time. That is the drafting point, the point of ambiguity, which I hope one or other of the Law Officers of the Crown will clear up.
The other is a more substantial point. That subsection refers to a writ summoning a peer to attend the House. That expression clearly repeats the fuller form which occurs in Clause 1(1):
… a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords …

I take it that the writ to attend the House referred to in Clause 3(4) is the same thing as the writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in Clause 1(1).
12.45 p.m.
There may have been a recent innovation in the form of writs of summons, but, unless there has, there is no such animal as a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords. Unless such a writ has recently been invented, and if it has, no doubt one or other of the Law Officers will come promptly to his feet and say when and how, there is no such thing as a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords. If there is no such thing as a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, then Clause 1 and, in so far as the Bill depends upon it, the Bill are null and void.
I am directing myself specifically to those words which occur in subsection (4) of the Clause to which one of the Amendments relates, and I wish to read to the House the terms of the writ of summons which, so far as I know, is in use at present. I will not read it in full, merely the material words. It runs:
'Whereas … we have ordered a certain Parliament to be holden … we strictly enjoin and command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to us that you be at the said day and place personally present with us and with the said prelates great men and peers to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid.
I submit that that is not a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords. It is a writ of summons to Parliament, as it always historically has been. I further submit that, unless there has been a recent change in formula, there is no such thing as this writ of summons to attend the House of Lords upon which this Clause of the Bill and the whole Bill depends.
It may be urged that the reference to "the said prelates, great men and peers" is the equivalent of a summons to the House of Lords, but I do not for a moment think that this contention can be maintained. At the period when this form of writ originated there was no distinct House of Lords, and the writ is saying to the addressee, "We command you, as we are commanding all your peers, to come to Parliament." It is an assurance that he will not find himself alone, but that he is coming to a general gathering of his peers. This historically, and, I submit,


in current law, is a writ of summons to Parliament and, since the Bill does not purport to deal with a writ of summons to Parliament, but with a writ of summons to the House of Lords, unless there has been a change in the style, or a very substantial argument can be produced, it seems to me to be open to the contention that we are engaged upon a wild-goose chase and that the Bill which we are examining has no effect.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair.]

Mr. Roebuck: Such is my admiration for the learning of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and such is my immense admiration for the deep wells of wisdom that reside within him, that I am suffering from a sense of grievous disappointment at the remarks he addressed to the Committee in respect of the age of 72. During the first part of his remarks he told the Committee that this figure had been arrived at on an actuarial basis, and when challenged by some hon. Members he appeared to indicate that certain other factors had been taken into consideration.
The Committee ought to have before it a more detailed explanation of the other factors which have been taken into consideration. It would seem that we should be depriving the other place of a great deal of useful counsel if we chopped off people automatically at the age of 72.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order. My hon. Friend is arguing this point although it forms the substance of the next Amendment, which is in my name.

Mr. Roebuck: May I, with great respect, Mr. Gourlay, draw your attention to subsection (3), and also to the extremely interesting speech made by my hon. and learned Friend? Surely we are entitled to comment on his observations.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The hon. Member's observations have some reference to the following Amendment. Perhaps he will direct his remarks more specifically to the Amendment which is before the Committee.

Mr. Roebuck: That is precisely what I was doing, Mr. Gourlay, with respect. I was addressing myself to the considerations

which my hon. and learned Friend had put before the Committee. My hon. and learned Friend's argument was that this provision should remain in the Clause because certain considerations had been the result of deliberations on the part of those who were responsible for this rather curious Measure. My hon. and learned Friend explained that certain other considerations had been taken into account. I wish to explore that statement, and the Committee is surely entitled to go into the matter in some detail.
I should like to know from my hon. and learned Friend whether, in coming to this determination, he took account of the history of these islands—whether he took account of what would have been the effect on our legislature if Gladstone had been dismissed from public life at the age of 72, or if Palmerston had been so dismissed, or if my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) had been thrown out at that age. He might also direct his attention to other places——

Mr. Murton: The hon. Member ought not to forget his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), for whom we have the greatest respect.

Mr. Roebuck: I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is so young-looking that nobody would think that he was above the age of majority.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I might not be so young-looking if I went to the House of Lords.

Mr. Roebuck: May the heavens preserve my hon. Friend from such an unfortunate fate. I hope that the Valhalla to which he will eventually go will be one in which joy bells will ring for ever and ever.
To return to this most important Clause—the Committee ought to take into consideration the contributions which other statesmen of mature age have made on the world stage. What would have happened if Dr. Adenauer had been dismissed from public life at the age of 72? A sinister thought occurs to me: I suspect that the age of 72 has been arrived at because some of my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have something against the President of France, and may be thinking that if he had been


dismissed from public life at the age of 72 certain irritations would not now be causing them trial and tribulation.
My hon. and learned Friend owes it to the Committee to give us a better explanation. He ought to tell us why he has reached this conclusion. He might also direct his attention, as a most distinguished member of the legal profession, to the fact that barristers and solicitors are not required to retire from the law at the age of 72.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I must stress the fact that this argument is related to the next Amendment and that my hon. Friend is anticipating all my remarks on that Amendment.

Mr. Roebuck: If my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) had attended more of our deliberations he would know that I am addressing myself precisely to the arguments put to the Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and that it would be extremely discourteous of hon. Members not to take into proper account everything that my hon. and learned Friend has said.

The Deputy Chairman: There is a relationship between the two Amendments. I find it difficult to draw a narrow line. Certain references have been made. Perhaps the hon. Member will now resume his speech.

Mr. Roebuck: Perhaps we shall now have a period of unusual silence from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, so that I may bring my remarks to a speedy conclusion. I do not wish to detain the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Go on."] I am obliged to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton), who apparently wishes me to continue this interesting line of inquiry.
My hon. and learned Friend ought to address himself to why it is apparently desirable for legislators in the other place to be dismissed and sent out into the cold at the age of 72 whereas members of the legal profession are apparently to be allowed to continue, until the Lord claims them, administering and going in great detail into the sort of laws which have been enacted by others—not only practising members of the Bar and solicitors but also Her Majesty's judges.
It is surely within the knowledge of my hon. and learned Friend that from time to time Her Majesty's judges make law. Apparently we are to allow them to deliberate on matters of common law and to produce all sorts of judge-made law. Why should Her Majesty's judges be able to make law when they are over the age of 72? Many learned judges are over that age. We can recall a former Lord Chief Justice—Lord Goddard—who carried on until he was about 84. Apparently he was competent until he reached that sort of age—at any rate, competent to make law. I shall not go into other matters.
My hon. and learned Friend has told us that other men are not competent to make law in the legislature. Why is that? Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will now intervene to give us the benefit of his great knowledge in these matters. Is it the case that when someone appears on the Bench, by a miracle the arcana of wisdom descends upon him and he is able to make law? If such people can make law, why should not others? There must be some logical progression in the matter. My hon and learned Friend and other of my hon. and right hon. Friends are obviously men of such wisdom and burning zeal that they would not put these provisions lightly into a Measure. They must have some reason for this, and the Committee is entitled to the fullest explanation of it.
It may be that they have some secret information from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which tells them that there is something about the atmosphere of the other place—possibly something in the air conditioning—which makes it possible for noble Lords suddenly to become stupid at the age of 72—a phenomenon which does not apply to us. If so, should we not hear about it?
Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend thinks that it has something to do with the food, in which case, he might send a message to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), so that he could come to the Committee, which in itself would be an event, to explain whether there was any difference between the food served here and that served in the other place. Perhaps they eat sheep's brains—or perhaps we do. This is a most unsatisfactory situation.
My hon. and learned Friend, who is noted for his great knowledge of these things, has put into the Clause the age of 72 without offering any real explanation. This is treating the Committee with contempt. If he argued a case somewhere else, he would not dream of saying that something was so without referring to some authority. My hon. and learned Friend seems to be receiving advice from the Home Secretary, who, as we all know, is a tremendous supporter of the Bill, but I should be obliged if he would explain it, so that we shall have a chance of expediting our proceedings.
Many of us are not willing that the Committee be treated with contempt. I see my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security., going out, perhaps for the actuarial tables——

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Murton: He is going for his vitamins.

Mr. Roebuck: He may need them, as will all those on the Treasury Bench before we are finished. Despite what has been said to them, they are clearly not yet seized of the fact that hon. Members are not prepared to be rubber stamped like some voting peers in the other place might be. If my hon. and learned Friend wants to intervene to explain, I will willingly give way. Unfortunately, he is not rising.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would counsel the hon. Member of the grave dangers of giving way to any of his hon. Friends in the presence of the Deputy Chief Whip.

Mr. Roebuck: That is a great danger, but, after certain observations which have been made, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) probably has a better understanding of the Committee's views now. Certainly, he no longer wears a shining morning face, but a contrite expression, and I hope that he has a contrite feeling in his heart. I would even allow him to intervene to explain this age of 72—but I will not tempt him further. He has his own unique way of intervening in our affairs.

Mr. Murton: When working out these very impressive arguments, has the hon. Gentleman thought of the dangerous precedent of an age limit? Might the

Government not ultimately attempt to apply the same limit in this House?

Mr. Roebuck: The hon. Member puts his finger on an important point, to which I was hoping to come later in the afternoon, perhaps about teatime. But perhaps I should address myself to it now, if it does not distress my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, who likes his tea.
I have tried to explore the logic of this matter. Why should there be an age limit of 72 in the other place and not here? Why have this age limit for the other place, which makes laws, and not for judges, who also make laws? Let us turn to some other aspects of our national life——

Mr. Keith Speed: The hon. Gentleman should not leave that point altogether. There is a dilemma here, in that a judge may also be a member of the other place and unable to make laws there but able to do so in his capacity as a judge. This is a greater anomaly.

Mr. Roebuck: The hon. Gentleman uncovers there a more startling anomaly which must compel my hon. and learned Friend to rise instantly to say why this should be so. I will not be so discourteous to suggest that he has come here without the answer to this problem, or without having considered the various precedents.
Another group of men with an important part to play in our national life and who, even if they do not make laws, give some attention to our conduct, are the clergy——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Amendment. We are more concerned with whether a peer's seventy-second birthday comes before the end of the parliament or the end of the Session. We are not discussing whether the age of 72 is relevant or otherwise.

Mr. Roebuck: I am obliged, Mr. Gourlay, and will recross the line of order over which I sadly strayed——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. My hon. Friend is referring to


the clergy, and bishops sit in the other place.

Mr. Roebuck: That is so, and I was going to mention that point, which my hon. Friend with his usual perception has noticed. The bishops will form an important part of the other place under this legislation. I want to know from my hon. and learned Friend or any other right hon. Gentleman along that Treasury Bench, except for the Patronage Secretary, who does not know anything except how to say, "On a point of order", whether, when the bishops pass the age of 72, they will be dismissed from the other place.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As the guiding tactics of the Government may prevent me from putting several points myself, can the hon. Gentleman clarify one matter? The Amendment will marginally affect the average age of the average peer by about six months. Would he consider this in relation to the problems of elderly peers who will be representing Scotland or places far distant? Does he think that, if we marginally raise the age by this much, this might affect the ability of peers travelling long distances to contribute effectively to the proceedings?

Mr. Roebuck: That is an important point of which my hon. and learned Friend will have taken notice, in his courteous way, as he will of my point about the bishops. The question of distance is important and there are other features.
We come back now to the argument on the actuarial question which my hon. and learned Friend addressed to the Committee. Hon. Members will know that people live for different lengths of time in different parts even of this country.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: When considering the travel, is the hon. Gentleman aware that over the last few days, for example, planes have been unable to land at London because of fog, while trains have been four hours late and——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. That intervention has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Roebuck: I have no doubt that the hon. Member will have another opportunity on another Clause to raise that

interesting subject. I would not dream of going out of order and I bow instantly to your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay.
I was discussing the actuarial basis of my hon. and learned Friend's reasoning for arriving at the figure of 72. I wonder whether he has taken due note of the fact that people tend to have different life spans, depending on the part of the country in which they live. For instance, a man who lives in the industrial area of the Midlands will have a shorter life span than a man who has the good fortune to live beyond Glasgow, on Loch Lomond, for instance.
If part of my hon. and learned Friend's argument is that he has arrived at the figure of 72——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing whether it should be 72 or 75. We are discussing whether the age should be 72 at the end of the Parliament, or the end of the Session.

Mr. Roebuck: With great respect, Mr. Gourlay, that is precisely the point to which I am addressing myself. What I was saying is precisely relevant. We have heard from my hon. and learned Friend why this figure was reached and surely we are entitled to examine that; and that is precisely what I am doing. There are many hon. Members to whom this is a most important provision and we want it to be explored thoroughly.
My hon. and learned Friend could cut my remarks very short by instantly coming to the Box and telling us about this matter. I have no desire to detain the Committee unnecessarily, but I should be failing in my duty if I did not examine legislation very carefully. I am sure that that is what all hon. Members feel about this matter. My hon. and learned Friend has it within his power to cut the proceedings short, should some hon. Members think that they are becoming tedious, by coming to the Box and explaining himself. Perhaps we shall have to go on until my hon. and learned Friend decides to give us the benefit of his advice, his experience and his knowledge.
My hon. and learned Friend has told the Committee the basis on which the figure of 72 was fixed. What I want to know, to put it in simple terms, is whether the age takes account of regional


variations. Is it not the fact that the average life span of a man in the Midlands is; shorter than the life span of a man who lives in the Highlands of Scotland. Is it not something to do with the waterfalls, or something like that? My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) may think that it has something to do with the interesting beverages which are produced in these areas and which in certain circumstances are used to fortify people. Has this been taken into account, or is the age of 72 an average which has been reached after taking note of various local circumstances in various parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has my hon. Friend forgotten that in Georgia it is 140 years?

Mr. Roebuck: I do not have my hon. Friend's great experience of Georgia, but I know, and it will be within the knowledge of most hon. Members, that there are considerable variations depending on various things, such as environment, the sort of food eaten, the atmosphere, the smoke from chimneys, and so on.

Mr. Murton: There is also the excessive radio-activity in Wales.

Mr. Roebuck: That is an interesting factor. As my hon. and learned Friend represents Liverpool, Edgehill, which is a constituency close to Wales, he must be an expert on that subject and no doubt he will be able to address the Committee at some length on that so that we may have a proper appreciation and understanding of these various factors. It would clearly be undesirable if, for instance, some of my hon. and learned Friend's constituents were to be deprived of exercising to the full their capacity as legislators in the other place because of some climatic or geographic fact, and the Committee will want the clearest possible explanation from my hon. and learned Friend, and I now call upon him to give it.

Mr. Ridsdale: Because of my interventions on points of order, the Home Secretary has been kind enough to allow me to speak for a few minutes before the Guillotine may fall. This is what I understand to have been the purport of what he kindly suggested a few minutes ago.

Mr. Callaghan: I was trying to be helpful, but if the hon. Gentleman is not careful he will get me into trouble, because I have no influence either with the Chair or with the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. In the light of what has just been said, in fairness to the Chair and the Home Secretary should you not make it clear, Mr. Gourlay, that although it is no doubt the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to move the Closure at a predetermined time, there is no arrangement that the Motion should be accepted?

The Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct: there are no arrangement between the Chair and either side of the Committee.

Mr. Ridsdale: I have no wish to get the Home Secretary into difficulties.

Mr. Roebuck: He has enough already

Mr. Ridsdale: I am sorry that the Attorney-General has left the Chamber, because I had hoped that he would reply to the important point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Such a reply would make us much happier about the future progress of the Bill.
The voting declaration and its duration is the substance of the Amendment. Should a voting declaration be for the duration of a Session, for the duration of Parliament, or should it be permanent?
The House of Lords exists not to veto the will of the Commons, but to see that the will of the people is done. The more we move to Sessional and Parliamentary periods, the less likelihood there is that the will of the people will be done and the greater the likelihood that the rights of the people will be reduced and that the Commons or the Lords will become mere rubber stamps and simply part of the political machine. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that the voting declaration should be permanent. If democracy is to mean anything, we have to ensure that there are independent people able to have an independent judgment.
It is because of this view that I share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury.

Mr. O'Malley: Mr. O'Malley rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be not put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 147, Noes 53.

Division No. 96.]
AYES
[1.20 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Albert E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hattersley, Roy
Oswald, Thomas


Bishop, E. S.
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Blackburn, F.
Henig, Stanley
Palmer, Arthur


Boyden, James
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brooks, Edwin
Hoy, James
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurence


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Buchan, Norman
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn


Chapman, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Coe, Denis
Judd, Frank
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Concannon, J. D.
Lawson, George
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt, Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, Julian


Delargy, Hugh
McBride, Neil
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dell, Edmund
McCann, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dunn, James A.
MacColl, James
Taverne, Dick


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Tinn, James


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tuck, Raphael


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Urwin, T. W.


Ennals, David
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Ensor, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wallace, George


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'ham, Yardley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wadrins, David (Consett)


Fernyhouglt, E.
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Finch, Harold
Marks, Kenneth
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maxwell, Robert
Whitaker, Ben


Foley, Maurice
Millan, Bruce
Wilkins, W. A.


Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gardner, Tony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams Clifford, (Abertillery)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Hannan, William






NOES


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Percival, Ian


Booth, Albert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Channon, H. P. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clegs, Walter
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Roebuck, Roy


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Loveys, W. H.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Sheldon, Robert


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murton, Oscar
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Younger, Hn. George


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Onslow, Cranley



Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holland, Philip
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor and


Hooson, Emlyn
Pardoe, John
Mr. Victor Goodhew.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put accordingly and negatived.

To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Select Committee appointed to consider Scottish Affairs:

To consist of Sixteen Members:

Mr. John Brewis, Mr. Donald Dewar, Mr. Peter Doig, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mrs. Winifred Ewing, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. William Hannan, Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison, Mr. George Lawson, Mr. John P. Mackintosh, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Thomas Steele, Mr. Esmond Wright, and Mr. George Younger:

Power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any

Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order; to report from time to time, and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:

Eight to be the Quorum.—[Mr. McCann.]

AGE OF MAJORITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. McCann.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past One o'clock p.m.